Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Foundation Begins Redraft Process For MPL

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the treading-lightly dept.

Mozilla 65

Barence writes "Mozilla has announced plans to redraft the open-source license underpinning projects such as Firefox. The Mozilla Public License 1.1 has been used to distribute numerous projects including Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenSolaris and Flex for over a decade. In the first phase of this process, Mozilla will release an alpha draft based on feedback already received. This will be followed by 'commentary, discussion, and further drafting, followed by beta and release candidate drafts.' Mozilla intends to 'seriously investigate' whether it can make the MPL compatible with the Apache license, in an effort to 'help projects using the MPL become more flexible about using Apache-licensed code.'"

cancel ×

65 comments

OpenSolaris is not MPL (3, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471726)

Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

Re:OpenSolaris is not MPL (2, Informative)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472106)

Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

Wrong. Take a look at the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License [wikipedia.org]

Re:OpenSolaris is not MPL (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472130)

Its Sun CDDL, a totally different license.

Wrong. Take a look at the first line on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License [wikipedia.org]

Wrong. Read the text you're linking to:

Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) is a free software license, produced by Sun Microsystems, based on the Mozilla Public License (MPL), version 1.1.

Yes it's based on the MPL, but it's not the MPL.

Re:OpenSolaris is not MPL (1)

BhaKi (1316335) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472192)

Yes it's based on the MPL, but it's not the MPL.

I didn't mean that CDDL == MPL. I just meant CDDL is not all that different from MPL.

Re:OpenSolaris is not MPL (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472112)

Wasn't CDDL derived from the MPL? With changes such as removing the clause that allowed Netscape to arbitrarily change the license at some point... The one that Mozilla is now using to change the MPL.

Iceweasle (2, Interesting)

BluePeppers (1596987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471728)

I guess we'll still be stuck with iceweasle? As a corperation, I can't see them making that concession...

Re:Iceweasle (2, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471752)

I guess you don't use it, because it was re-branded as icecat three years ago.

Re:Iceweasle (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471776)

In Debian it's still called IceWeasel, that is the reason the GNU version changed its name.

Re:Iceweasle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472488)

To split hairs for you, in Debian it's called Iceweasel while the GNU browser was called IceWeasel. (capitalization)

Re:Iceweasle (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471782)

Perhaps he uses Debian.

Re:Iceweasle (1)

BluePeppers (1596987) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471804)

I use archlinux, and I think it's called shireotoko by default. I've rebranded mine, using the firebrand script, but frankly... well I don't like to play up to trolls, but the point of my comment was that a lot of people find that particular clause rather annoying. If you wish to be a penickity git and tell me it's icecat, I couldn't care less :)

Re:Iceweasle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31492714)

I thought the brand name was a trademark issue rather than a license issue. And I think it is quite understandable that they want to protect their brand from from forks which might have issues they can't deal with.

Wouldn't it be better... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471760)

There are so many different open-source licenses out there, from GPL to BSD and everything between and around them. At the same time, there are only a small number of ways in which these licenses differentiate themselves from each other.

Wouldn't the logical thing to do be to figure out how, for example, to take the original open-source license, the GPL, and craft modular sections for it such that authors could choose the sections based on which rights they wished to permit or disallow? For example, one author may decide to use the regular old-fashioned GPL, which requires source redistribution with attribution (if I recall correctly), where another may decide to decline any redistribution rights to source or binaries, and yet a third may want to permit restribution or reuse of everything in any form.

Currently that takes three separate licenses (and that's before we get into the vanity licenses that each company makes for itself just so they can name a license for themselves.) But by extending and modularizing one license, it's possible to do things like say "users may use this software under the current or any future licenses" -- it extends the freeness by letting the software author choose from an entirely new set of modules for the next release of his software, while letting the user choose which modular license to accept. More importantly, it would bring even more people under the same umbrella, making it easier for users to proudly proclaim the licensing of the software which fills their hardware.

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (1, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471794)

Do you have a licence to post in that crazy huge font?

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31477224)

It's called the FML: Fucking Morons License

Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471818)

How did you do that?

Re:Wha? (3, Interesting)

jlp2097 (223651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472006)

(I am not the orginal poster). But inspecting his post, this seems to be fairly easy: [b][em][strong]you text here[/b][/em][/strong]. This is the result: result . Slashdot should really not allow stuff like this.

Re:Wha? (1)

jlp2097 (223651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472022)

Whoops. Looks like my pseudo-HTML is not well formed (look at the closing brackets). But you get the idea.

Re:Wha? (1)

daffmeister (602502) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473554)

He pretty quickly got modded to -1 so the engine doesn't really need to try to do anything clever.

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (1)

ThinkingInBinary (899485) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471832)

The whole point of the GPL is that it grants a certain set of rights to anyone who gets the software, and requires them to pass those rights on to anyone they redistribute it to. Making it modular would make it easier for people to remove rights from the GPL that they don't like (say, the anti-Tivoization provision in GPL3). The FSF would never agree to it. (You might be able to just reuse their license text, depending on how it's licensed, though :)

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31473166)

The BSD license predates the GPL.

Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471786)

This effort is unnecessary. Several suitable licenses already exist. They can use this one [opensource.org] , or this one [opensource.org] , or this one [opensource.org] , or even this one [opensource.org] .

Those are all true open source licenses, which maximize freedom for everybody.

Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471800)

A new version of the MPL will automatically relicense their existing code. None of those licenses can do that.

Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471844)

Source:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1-annotated.html

6.1. New Versions.
Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape") may publish revised and/or new versions of the License from time to time. Each version will be given a distinguishing version number.

Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471922)

publishing new licenses doesn't mean automatically upgrading stuff. go look at the pains mozilla.org went through to relicense from MPL to MPL/GPL and later MPL/LGPL/GPL.

Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (5, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471990)

AC didn't quote this part:

6.2. Effect of New Versions. This clause guarantees that mozilla.org will never be able to take away rights that you have under the version of the license under which your code or modifications were created.

Once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the License, You may always continue to use it under the terms of that version. You may also choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version of the License published by Netscape [The Mozilla Foundation]. No one other than Netscape [The Mozilla Foundation] has the right to modify the terms applicable to Covered Code created under this License.

It is going to take a pretty fantastic interpretation of that clause to argue that it doesn't allow use of code under later versions of the license.

Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472194)

mozilla foundation can issue a new license, but that doesn't mean code they've issued under the old license changes. it would still require someone to update the files to claim to be under the new license. most likely mozilla foundation would relicense to a newer mpl on a project by project basis, after agreeing with stakeholders in the project.

the same relicensing could be done by any other group with mpl code to those future mpl versions, but you'd need to go through whatever general approval system your project uses.

it's true that only mozilla foundation can write a new license, but it doesn't mean it instantly applies anywhere. anyone can take an mpl'd file and apply a newer version of the license to the file, doing that is an instant fork. it's only an interesting fork if the core of the project agrees to the change.

Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472230)

Well there Mr. Imaginative, if the Mozilla Foundation is working up a new license that they want to be compatible with the Apache license, do you think there is a possibility that they will update their projects to use this new version of the license?

I guess it would have been more accurate if I had said "a new version of the MPL will allow them to relicense their existing code simply by updating files", but for the purposes of a Slashdot discussion, "automatically" was fine.

Re:Unnecessary. Suitable licenses already exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472278)

Don't these open source projects just put the license in the sourcecode at the top somewhere, and call it licensed? It's not like they go register with a judge somewhere. So all Mozilla has to do is say ok we're using this new license now, and it's licensed.

Of course it wont work like this because you nerds make everything more difficult than it has to be with these dumbass software licenses.

Just BSD everything, kthxbai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471792)

All other licenses are nothing but a headache.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (3, Informative)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31471936)

Just BSD everything. All other licenses are nothing but a headache.

Not everyone wants to give away their code in a way that it can end up reused inside a proprietary closed source project.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472164)

You're right, not everybody supports truly-free software. That's why we usually laugh at crowing cocks like rms and his "Free" Software Foundation.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472298)

Giving the freedom to take away others' freedom isn't my cup of tea, personally.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (1)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472326)

Taking away my freedom to even allow someone else to use my work in their work in a manner that they would like isn't my cup of tea, personally.

This is a cyclical argument.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472432)

Giving the freedom to take away others' freedom isn't my cup of tea, personally.

What the fuck do you think the GPL does? Yeah, that's right. It takes away the freedom of others to use GPL'ed software in closed-source applications. I hate to break it to you, but the GPL itself GIVES THE FREEDOM TO TAKE AWAY OTHERS' FREEDOM.

Are you really so blind and zealous that you can't see that for yourself?

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (2, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472598)

No.

Fist, the GPL or BSD by themselves can't do anything, I mean, who gives or takes freedoms is the developer.

When the developer licenses his software with the GPL, he's taking away that one specific freedom directly.

When he chooses the BSD, he doesn't take away any freedom, but enables those who use his software to include it in software that takes away ALL the "software freedoms".

Now, what matters is: how important do you consider those freedoms? The GPL proponents believe that proprietary software is morally wrong, so the "freedom" they take is only used to cause harm to others.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472716)

Oh, and by the way, I have nothing against people who choose to license their software with the BSD license. I like all open source licenses. It's simply a difference of opinion in one particular issue.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31473100)

Freedom is discrete. You can't "measure" freedom over a continuum. Either you have freedom, or you do not. There is no middle ground.

The moment the GPL takes away the freedom to include GPL-licensed code within a closed-source piece of software, all freedom is lost.

That's why the "Free" in "Free Software Foundation" is inaccurate; they do not advocate freedom. In fact, their preferred licenses go to extreme lengths to deny freedom from other developers who wish to use GPL'ed source code within their own, closed-source applications.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (1)

incongruency (1683022) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473360)

Unfortunately, nothing is that black and white in the world. Freedom does have a middle ground.

I have the freedom to drive a car. I do not have the freedom to drive a car on private property where I am not wanted, as doing so would infringe on the freedom of another to hold private property and keep it private. In the same way, those who write code have the freedom to keep their code private as they want.

It is a balancing act.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (1)

bit01 (644603) | more than 4 years ago | (#31479942)

The GPL proponents believe that proprietary software is morally wrong,

Not necessarily. They often believe proprietary software is not a valid model e.g. artificial scarcity doesn't reflect the real world. People's motivations are complex.

---

The patent mafia: When all they've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31494856)

The GPL does not take away any freedom. Copyright takes away freedom, the GPL conditionally gives back some of the freedoms copyright takes away. The BSD license pretty much gives back all the freedoms copyright takes away.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472178)

Then don't give away your source code at all.

All you're doing by publishing GPL code is polluting the market with restrictive code backed by government force.

You don't own the infinite potential copies of your ideas that can be created by others.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (3, Insightful)

HyperQuantum (1032422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472246)

Just BSD everything. All other licenses are nothing but a headache.

Not everyone wants to give away their code in a way that it can end up reused inside a proprietary closed source project.

I agree. People put their project under a BSD license, and then their work gets used, but they get nothing in return and they start complaining that they don't receive enough donations for their project. (saw this recently in some /. article)

Disclaimer: I'm not against the BSD license (or other licenses that are 'more free' than the (L-)GPL), but IMO people should keep the consequences in mind when they decide to use it for their project. You actually say: here's my code, use it, I expect nothing in return. So don't complain if they do as you say.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (3, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472288)

And some BSD license folks have encountered _precisely_ that problem. Take a good look at the history of MySQL inside of Sun's commercial licensing model.

There's nothing like publishing "open source" code, having someone modify it, proprietize it for their products, _break it_ for interoperability, and have to deal with their concealed changes as the primary author when their clients come whining to you about how it doesn't work. I've seen this happen with Kerberos, CIFS, Java, and oh dear lord, it's been a problem with device drivers. Open API's aren't enough, either: I've seen it happen with PCL, PDF, and Postscript as well.

Java used to be much worse about it, when the code was much less open, but it still happens.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473994)

Java used to be much worse about it, when the code was much less open, but it still happens.

You mean “Microsoft’s ugly hack of a JVM was intentionally much worse, to kill off Sun. But since Sun sued MS, and won, it has gone much better. Even for others trying to do the same thing as MS.”.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#31474408)

No, I mean "the closed Sun source code hid violations of their own published Java API's that were difficult to fix or even discover". Microsoft's abuses of the API, and their claims that it was still "Java" though it had features and relied on behavior that violated the API's and the security models, was a separate set of issues. Both, however, could have been avoided by using a more open license model.

Sun's increasingly open source code helped quite a lot since then. I do hope that Oracle avoids closing that down.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31477724)

Holy ignorance of basic economics, Batman!

A proprietary software vendor can't destroy any value that a PL/PD (permissively-licensed or public domain) project has, he can simply [i]copy[/i] its value for his own purpose. This is really beneficial for a freelance programmer like me, because it keeps me from having to reinvent the wheel in situations where using Copyleft code isn't an option (which applies to almost all of my work), and I still give credit where credit is due. The fact that PL/PD code exists in virtually every major operating system (proprietary as well as GPL'ed ones) did not hurt the PL/PD projects. (There's a long list of reasons why Linux beat FreeBSD, including the "viral" effect, but weakness of the BSD license isn't one of them.) If a company is able to fork a PL/PD project, close it, and then convince anyone else to use their copy means they are being rewarded for the value they [i]added[/i] to the original code, not the freely-available original code itself!

GPL is kind of like a sticking a post-it note on your face that says "by seeing this face you agree to like me and only speak of me in terms I approve of" - that would be completely unenforceable in a rational and free society! It is backed by mindless government force and nothing more!

(Signed: Alex Libman's sock-puppet.)

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472078)

What Scott Cooper said. The BSD license is a pretty decent license, IMHO. Certainly much better than the average "license" one "accepts" when installing proprietary software. But, it DOES deny certain rights to end users. Under the BSD, it can conceivably be illegal to decompile, disassembe, and reverse engineer a software. Which, to me, is ludicrous.

If/when I purchase a software from you, and it just "almost" meets my needs, I want to get into it, and alter this or that to make it actually WORK for me. Even if you have since gone out of business, and offer zero support for your software, I should be able to use it.

Re:Just BSD everything, kthxbai (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472122)

The beauty of the current situation around software sales and licensing is that you can factor that requirement into your purchasing decisions, while others are free to offer software with greater limitations.

H.264 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31471802)

Licence revision will allow them to keep a version of Firefox open while also allowing them to release a version with bundled H.264 support for the HTML5 video element.

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html
http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020363.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html
etc, etc.

Feels like a repost :/

Re:H.264 (1)

TheReal_sabret00the (1604049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31476476)

I doubt it. Having read a few blogs from Mozilla employees, they're going to fight H.264 to they're left with no other choice and that's a long time off. Good luck to Mozilla. H.264 won't help the internet at all. It's now between Theora and maybe [hopefully] Google's [latest acquisition] On2.

Re:H.264 (1)

Gerv (15179) | more than 4 years ago | (#31479438)

The MPL already allows the bundling of proprietary components, if Mozilla wanted to go down that route. But they don't - as the links you post show. Pay-on-the-door video standards are not good for the web.

Gerv

E$P?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31472032)

What is the objective? (2, Interesting)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 4 years ago | (#31472428)

What is the objective of the new license? Why don't any existing licences meet that objective? It's not really clear to me why any open source project can't settle for GPL, LGPL or BSD. Thus I ask, what are the objectives that are not met by these.

Re:What is the objective? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31473146)

The copyleft on MPL-like licenses applies only on source distribution (you can distribute a modified binary with whatever license you like, but if you distribute the source it has to be under the same MPL-like license).

Re:What is the objective? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31474106)

But to distribute your modified binary, you need to distribute the MPLed sources (but not new ones). See MPL Section 3.2 [mozilla.org] .

Well, perhaps it will no longer be the case post-MPL-revision; who knows.

Re:What is the objective? (1)

Gerv (15179) | more than 4 years ago | (#31479448)

Changing the scope of the copyleft has been explicitly named as something Mozilla is not going to do.
http://mpl.mozilla.org/scope/ [mozilla.org]

Gerv

Re:What is the objective? (2, Insightful)

smegmatic (1145201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473214)

The objective is to limit your freedoms more than the GPL, LGPL, and BSD licenses permit. That's always the objective when new licenses are made.

Re:What is the objective? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473732)

That line might make more sense if Mozilla wasn't offering the source code under the GPL and LGPL in addition to the MPL (Source [mozilla.org] ). If you find the MPL restrictive you can always choose one of the others.

Re:What is the objective? (1)

smegmatic (1145201) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473984)

Look at it from the perspective of a developer. Let's say I want to contribute code to Firefox under the GPL. My two options are:

  1. Dual license it under the MPL as well, giving up some freedoms
  2. Fork Firefox

Because option 2 is not really practical, everyone effectively plays by the rules of option 1.

Re:What is the objective? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#31474510)

Dual license it under the MPL as well, giving up some freedoms

Exactly what freedoms do you think you're giving up? As the developer you have all the freedom in the world—nothing forces you to publish in the first place, just as nothing can force Mozilla to integrate and distribute your patch. So Mozilla wants you to license your code to them under the LGPL and MPL in addition to your preferred GPL in exchange for integration into their codebase. This is fair enough; they have the right to dictate terms regarding their own repository. As a result of this policy the end-user has the choice of all the freedoms granted by the GPL, plus any additional freedoms granted by the LGPL or MPL. How do you interpret this as "giving up some freedoms"?

Of course, since you referenced the GPL as your preferred license, you probably live in that peculiar dream-world where "freedom" is defined in terms of restrictions on how the source can be used. In that case I can see how lifting restrictions can be seen as "giving up some freedoms", for some twisted definition of "freedoms".

Re:What is the objective? (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 4 years ago | (#31475398)

As the developer you have all the freedom in the world--nothing forces you to publish in the first place, just as nothing can force Mozilla to integrate and distribute your patch.

You're forced to publish YOUR work according to THEIR rules. That's not all the freedom in the world by any stretch.

Re:What is the objective? (2, Informative)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31474174)

That was my question too... Until I read the rest of TFS!

Mozilla intends to 'seriously investigate' whether it can make the MPL compatible with the Apache license, in an effort to 'help projects using the MPL become more flexible about using Apache-licensed code.'

Revision process starts by commenting on MPL 1.1 (1)

Balaitous (126540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31473260)

See https://mpl.mozilla.org/participate/comment/

...and? (1)

KlausBreuer (105581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31479232)

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not seeing the forest due to all the trees, but... so what?
I don't care about lawyer-babble. In my eyes, we use Mozilla like this: a) free, b) don't try to sell it. Full stop.

Who cares about some or other minor legal detail, as long as the result stays as we know it?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...