|
Gobeille, Robert <bob.gobeille@...>
We (FOSSology project) are having a discussion about how to name dual licenses. What is the SPDX policy on naming dual licenses? Here are some examples: 1. The Asterisk license is GPL-2.0 with exceptions: http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk/trunk/LICENSETo me, I would call this an Asterisk license because of the number of specific permission granted. 2. Gephi License This is just a dual GPL-3.0, CDDL license. So in FOSSology, I would call it "Dual GPL-3.0 - CDDL” and some others would call it “Dual Gephi License”. We have several examples like this where the license is a straight dual license. To me, “Dual GPL-3.0-CDDL” is more helpful than “Gephi License”. If you name all these licenses by the project then you have to become familiar with them all (the ultimate in license proliferation). —— Gephi notice follows ---- Copyright 2008-2010 Gephi Authors : Mathieu Bastian <mathieu.bastian@...> Website : http://www.gephi.org This file is part of Gephi. DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER. Copyright 2011 Gephi Consortium. All rights reserved. The contents of this file are subject to the terms of either the GNU General Public License Version 3 only ("GPL") or the Common Development and Distribution License("CDDL") (collectively, the "License"). You may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You can obtain a copy of the License at http://gephi.org/about/legal/license-notice/ or /cddl-1.0.txt and /gpl-3.0.txt. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. When distributing the software, include this License Header Notice in each file and include the License files at /cddl-1.0.txt and /gpl-3.0.txt. If applicable, add the following below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by brackets [] replaced by your own identifying information: "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]" If you wish your version of this file to be governed by only the CDDL or only the GPL Version 3, indicate your decision by adding "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 3] license." If you do not indicate a single choice of license, a recipient has the option to distribute your version of this file under either the CDDL, the GPL Version 3 or to extend the choice of license to its licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL Version 3 code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 3 license, then the option applies only if the new code is made subject to such option by the copyright holder. Contributor(s): Portions Copyrighted 2011 Gephi Consortium. Thanks, Bob Gobeille bobg@...
|
|
|
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
|
|
|
Hi Bob,
Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote:
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added.
I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
Thanks!!
Jilayne
_______________________________________________ Spdx-legal mailing list Spdx-legal@...https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
|
|
|
Gobeille, Robert <bob.gobeille@...>
Thanks Jilayne and Kate, It looks like we need to do some updating on FOSSology to be SPDX 2.0 compliant. Thanks for your answers.
Bob Gobeille
Hi Bob,
Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote:
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added.
I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
Thanks!!
Jilayne
|
|
|
Great Bob! Funny timing, as I was just looking at some FOSSology scans (haven’t done so in awhile, it’s like re-visiting an old friend :) and may have some other feedback for re: license matching. I’ll shoot you an email with something more articulate soon.
thanks again for all your work, Jilayne
Thanks Jilayne and Kate, It looks like we need to do some updating on FOSSology to be SPDX 2.0 compliant. Thanks for your answers.
Bob Gobeille
Hi Bob,
Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote:
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added.
I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
Thanks!!
Jilayne
|
|
|
Gobeille, Robert <bob.gobeille@...>
Thanks Jilayne. We look forward to your FOSSology feedback. FYI, in FOSSology 3.0 we are adding a third license scanner - ninka. The idea behind three scanners that operate so differently is to give users even more confidence in the results and to be able to automate more clearing decisions. 3.0 also has our new SPDX generator, a more unified UI, export control scanner, and more compliance workflow features to speed up the process. We are targeting a mid-august release to coincide with LinuxCon NA.
Thanks, Bob Gobeille
Great Bob! Funny timing, as I was just looking at some FOSSology scans (haven’t done so in awhile, it’s like re-visiting an old friend :) and may have some other feedback for re: license matching. I’ll shoot you an email with something more articulate soon.
thanks again for all your work, Jilayne
Thanks Jilayne and Kate, It looks like we need to do some updating on FOSSology to be SPDX 2.0 compliant. Thanks for your answers.
Bob Gobeille
Hi Bob,
Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote:
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added.
I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
Thanks!!
Jilayne
|
|
|
Scott Lamons <spl518@...>
Hi Bob,
Nice to see that Ninka will be added to Fossology. Looking forward to checking that out in the near future. Cheers, Scott
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gobeille, Robert <bob.gobeille@...> wrote: Thanks Jilayne. We look forward to your FOSSology feedback. FYI, in FOSSology 3.0 we are adding a third license scanner - ninka. The idea behind three scanners that operate so differently is to give users even more confidence in the results and to be able to automate more clearing decisions. 3.0 also has our new SPDX generator, a more unified UI, export control scanner, and more compliance workflow features to speed up the process. We are targeting a mid-august release to coincide with LinuxCon NA.
Thanks, Bob Gobeille
Great Bob! Funny timing, as I was just looking at some FOSSology scans (haven’t done so in awhile, it’s like re-visiting an old friend :) and may have some other feedback for re: license matching. I’ll shoot you an email with something more articulate soon.
thanks again for all your work, Jilayne
Thanks Jilayne and Kate, It looks like we need to do some updating on FOSSology to be SPDX 2.0 compliant. Thanks for your answers.
Bob Gobeille
Hi Bob,
Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote:
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added.
I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
Thanks!!
Jilayne
_______________________________________________
Spdx-legal mailing list
Spdx-legal@...
https://lists.spdx.org/mailman/listinfo/spdx-legal
-- www.linkedin.com/in/scottlamons
CONFIDENTIALITY
NOTICE: This message and any accompanying communications are covered by
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
§§
2510 2521, and contain information intended for the specified
individual(s) only. The information is confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering the
communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this communication in error and that any review,
dissemination, copying, or the taking of any action based upon, the
contents of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify
us immediately by email and delete the original message. Thank you.
|
|
|
Gobeille, Robert <bob.gobeille@...>
Hi Jilayne,
We are discussing this in one of our issues:
Michael (cc’d) has added a table of new licenses we are considering. One issue for us is that we report all licenses by a name (short form identifier). A “LicenseRef-“ doesn’t have any meaning to us, but we are trying to be as compatible to SPDX as possible.
The page on requesting a new license ( http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview) doesn’t tell us what types of licenses you will accept (other than they have to be open source). Somehow I suspect it won’t be fruitful if we submitted all the licenses we have that are currently not in SPDX. We have 759 licenses last I looked. I think SPDX list is 301 + exceptions.
Advice?
Thanks, Bob Gobeille
Hi Bob,
Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote:
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added.
I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
Thanks!!
Jilayne
|
|
|
Hi Michael, Bob,
Apologies for the delayed response here, this got a bit buried in the old Inbox.
I had a look at the table in the link Michael provided. For ease of reference, I cut and pasted your table in a spreadsheet and added a column with my notes on what the proper SPDX license expression would be, using the SPDX license identifiers and expression syntax. If there was not a direct link to the project named, I put a link to what I think was intended and then provided the SPDX license expression.
As far as mapping this onto the greater SPDX specification fields, I’d expect to see these license expressions in 3.14 Declared License (for the package) or 4.6 License Information in File (for the file) or both, as applicable. The Concluded License field (3.12 and 4.5 for package and file level, respectively) would be used by the SPDX document creator to indicate, for example, which license in a disjunctive choice they choose to use.
Does that help?
I got a little lost with the rest of your email below about full text matching, etc. so let me know if this doesn’t answer all of your questions!
As for Bob’s question as to what kind of licenses are accepted on the list - so long as they are open source, we’ll consider them. The guidelines for how to request a license is here: http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/request-new-license If you want to submit multiple licenses at once, feel free to put it into a spreadsheet format and submit that way (instead of individual emails) or even a Google doc with a link, etc.
Thanks, Jilayne
Hello, I am sorry it took so much time to pick this thread below up. I am still not sure I got the idea for the problem with Fossology … In the spec (SPDX-2.0-Appendix-IV): using operands for expressing dual license statements. As a consequence, the Gephi license statement would / should result in a lic conclusion (or maybe also in a extracted license text): GPL-3.0 OR CDDL-1.0 We have an issue when implementing a full a text matcher, begin capable of matching reference license texts. Full text matching can yield some confidence when scanning texts with the goal to avoid (or reduce) manual inspection. Our goal is to do as much auto conclusion as possible. Accordingly, we are considering this and 17 other texts to the fossology license text db (see link below).
If we have such reference texts in the application, they need identification: internally, but also to the user in the UI. With the SPDX 2.0 proposed syntax (referring to the appendix IV again) I have a problem: There could be multiple reference texts targeting the same license-or-combination, for example, several text variants pointing to MIT and GPL-2.0 -> not nice in the application to do things like “MIT OR GPL-2 variant 01”, ““MIT OR GPL-2 variant 02” … In addition, this syntax is referring to two text entities. in the application handling it seems odd to have such meta entries given the fact that we have text associated with a finding. Our goal is to be “SPDX license list compliant” when setting license ids when adding reference texts to the database, but apparently for defining ids for such reference license texts we need to diverge from this? I am not sure, I am seeing a good solution that can be implemented in the application - what would be consistent way for reference texts? Admitted that I may be too much on the Fossology database model side. Kind regards, Michael From: Gobeille, Robert [mailto:bob.gobeille@...]
Sent: Mittwoch, 22. Juli 2015 22:59
To: J Lovejoy
Cc: Kate Stewart; SPDX-legal; Jaeger, Michael C.
Subject: Re: SPDX license question Hi Jilayne, We are discussing this in one of our issues: Michael (cc’d) has added a table of new licenses we are considering. One issue for us is that we report all licenses by a name (short form identifier). A “LicenseRef-“ doesn’t have any meaning to us, but we are trying to be as compatible to SPDX as possible. The page on requesting a new license ( http://spdx.org/spdx-license-list/license-list-overview) doesn’t tell us what types of licenses you will accept (other than they have to be open source). Somehow I suspect it won’t be fruitful if we submitted all the licenses we have that are currently not in SPDX. We have 759 licenses last I looked. I think SPDX list is 301 + exceptions. Hi Bob, Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below: On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote: Hi Bob, To me, I would call this an Asterisk license because of the number of specific permission granted.
This could be handled either as an explicit exception (add to exception list) or as a new license being added to the main list. Legal team is probably best ones to make the judgement though as to which way makes most sense.
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added. I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
2. Gephi License
This is just a dual GPL-3.0, CDDL license. So in FOSSology, I would call it "Dual GPL-3.0 - CDDL” and some others would call it “Dual Gephi License”. We have several examples like this where the license is a straight dual license. To me, “Dual GPL-3.0-CDDL” is more helpful than “Gephi License”. If you name all these licenses by the project then you have to become familiar with them all (the ultimate in license proliferation).
This is a nice illustration of why the license expressions syntax was created. ;-) "GPL-3.0 OR CDDL-1.0" I think is the license expression that should be used. see: Appendix IV: SPDX License Expressions in SPDX-2.0 for more details on the Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
—— Gephi notice follows ----
Copyright 2008-2010 Gephi
Authors : Mathieu Bastian <mathieu.bastian@...>
Website : http://www.gephi.org
This file is part of Gephi.
DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
Copyright 2011 Gephi Consortium. All rights reserved.
The contents of this file are subject to the terms of either the GNU
General Public License Version 3 only ("GPL") or the Common
Development and Distribution License("CDDL") (collectively, the
"License"). You may not use this file except in compliance with the
License. You can obtain a copy of the License at
http://gephi.org/about/legal/license-notice/
or /cddl-1.0.txt and /gpl-3.0.txt. See the License for the
specific language governing permissions and limitations under the
License. When distributing the software, include this License Header
Notice in each file and include the License files at
/cddl-1.0.txt and /gpl-3.0.txt. If applicable, add the following below the
License Header, with the fields enclosed by brackets [] replaced by
your own identifying information:
"Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
If you wish your version of this file to be governed by only the CDDL
or only the GPL Version 3, indicate your decision by adding
"[Contributor] elects to include this software in this distribution
under the [CDDL or GPL Version 3] license." If you do not indicate a
single choice of license, a recipient has the option to distribute
your version of this file under either the CDDL, the GPL Version 3 or
to extend the choice of license to its licensees as provided above.
However, if you add GPL Version 3 code and therefore, elected the GPL
Version 3 license, then the option applies only if the new code is
made subject to such option by the copyright holder.
Contributor(s):
Portions Copyrighted 2011 Gephi Consortium.
Thanks,
Bob Gobeille
bobg@...
|
|
|
Hi Bob,
Here’s some feedback on license identification in FOSSology based a recent scan I was looking at. I think some of the things I saw originally would be taken care of by using the LicenseRef-<FOSSology identifier> as discussed in a previous thread. Likewise, some of these may have already been caught or cleaned up otherwise, but just in case:
FOSSology match name on left - notes on left:
NewBSD - should be: BSD-2-Clause-NetBSD BSD-Style - again, would be nice if this could use the License-Ref maybe? GPL-3.0+-with-autoconf-exception - wasn’t the standard autoconf exception, so maybe use a different name for that (or submit to add to SPDX exceptions list) MIT-style - was actually ISC (on SPDX License List)
Additionally - at some point in the future, it would be great if FOSSology found: SPDX-Identifier: <SPDX license identifier or expression>
Thanks much!! Jilayne
Thanks Jilayne. We look forward to your FOSSology feedback. FYI, in FOSSology 3.0 we are adding a third license scanner - ninka. The idea behind three scanners that operate so differently is to give users even more confidence in the results and to be able to automate more clearing decisions. 3.0 also has our new SPDX generator, a more unified UI, export control scanner, and more compliance workflow features to speed up the process. We are targeting a mid-august release to coincide with LinuxCon NA.
Thanks, Bob Gobeille
Great Bob! Funny timing, as I was just looking at some FOSSology scans (haven’t done so in awhile, it’s like re-visiting an old friend :) and may have some other feedback for re: license matching. I’ll shoot you an email with something more articulate soon.
thanks again for all your work, Jilayne
Thanks Jilayne and Kate, It looks like we need to do some updating on FOSSology to be SPDX 2.0 compliant. Thanks for your answers.
Bob Gobeille
Hi Bob,
Thanks for asking! My additional comments to Kate’s also below:
On Jul 16, 2015, at 5:33 AM, Kate Stewart < kstewart@...> wrote:
Hi Bob, Comments inline...
This should definitely be handled as a new exception added to the exception list; if you think this is something SPDX should have on its list, please have a look at information needed to request a new license and let the legal list know if you want to request it be added. In which case, it would be expressed as: GPL-2.0 WITH Asterisk-exception (or whatever the exception ends up being called.) As per SPDX 2.0, this license would currently be expressed as a Lic-Ref (section 5 of the spec), as we don’t currently have a way to represent a valid license identifier (e.g., “GPL-2.0”) with an exception not on our list. This is functionality we discussed adding in a future version (e.g., a Lic-Ref equivalent for exceptions), but it remains to be seen when that will get added.
I would strongly urge against adding this as a new license in whole. Now that we have the license expression syntax for exception (“WITH”), and have moved all such exceptions to their own list, we ought to be consistent in that going forward. :)
Assuming when you say “dual” you mean it’s a choice between GPL-3.0 and CDDL-x.y, then Kate is correct, that “OR” would be the correct license syntax. Again, it would be preferably for any disjunctive or conjunctive license situations to use the short identifiers and the license expression syntax (“OR” or “AND”) rather than calling it a whole new license name.
Thanks!!
Jilayne
|
|
|
