You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Jacek Laskowski <el...@gmail.com> on 2006/03/09 15:09:29 UTC
Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the repo
Hi,
It struck me while I was about to commit Bill's patch
(http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1686). Some files in it
(and in j2ee-schema module, actually), contain
Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio
Road, Palo Alto, California 94303, U.S.A. All rights
reserved.
What are the rules to store such files in our repo? Since they're in
our repo, they're ours and I was changing the header of the files in
Bill's patch to reference the ASL 2.0 license, but am not sure if I'm
allowed to. If I'm not, they should not be in our repo, either.
Is there a mistake in my reasoning? ;) Desparately looking for a guidance...
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.org.pl
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the repo
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Jacek,
Dooh! Sent this just before I saw your comments in the JIRA issue.
I'll comment on the missing stuff in the JIRA.
BTW: Thanks for looking at the patch so quickly!
TTFN,
Bill Dudney
MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org
On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:20 AM, Bill Dudney wrote:
> Hi Jacek,
>
> Those files are already in your repo
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk/modules/j2ee-schema/
> src/j2ee_1_4schema/jsp_2_0.xsd
>
> I just copied the old schemas/dtd's from the existing geronimo stuff.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:09 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It struck me while I was about to commit Bill's patch
>> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1686). Some files
>> in it
>> (and in j2ee-schema module, actually), contain
>>
>> Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio
>> Road, Palo Alto, California 94303, U.S.A. All rights
>> reserved.
>>
>> What are the rules to store such files in our repo? Since they're in
>> our repo, they're ours and I was changing the header of the files in
>> Bill's patch to reference the ASL 2.0 license, but am not sure if I'm
>> allowed to. If I'm not, they should not be in our repo, either.
>>
>> Is there a mistake in my reasoning? ;) Desparately looking for a
>> guidance...
>>
>> Jacek
>>
>> --
>> Jacek Laskowski
>> http://www.laskowski.org.pl
>
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the repo
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
Hi Jacek,
Those files are already in your repo
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/trunk/modules/j2ee-schema/
src/j2ee_1_4schema/jsp_2_0.xsd
I just copied the old schemas/dtd's from the existing geronimo stuff.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Mar 9, 2006, at 7:09 AM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It struck me while I was about to commit Bill's patch
> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1686). Some files in it
> (and in j2ee-schema module, actually), contain
>
> Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio
> Road, Palo Alto, California 94303, U.S.A. All rights
> reserved.
>
> What are the rules to store such files in our repo? Since they're in
> our repo, they're ours and I was changing the header of the files in
> Bill's patch to reference the ASL 2.0 license, but am not sure if I'm
> allowed to. If I'm not, they should not be in our repo, either.
>
> Is there a mistake in my reasoning? ;) Desparately looking for a
> guidance...
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.org.pl
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 2006-03-11 at 09:22 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 09:11 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
> > Is it possible to copyright a DTD?
> >
> > NB: A "DTD" is a document which defines the format of an XML file, and
> > is used to validate that an arbitrary document is of the expected
> > format. It can also define default values for fields. Commonly such a
> > document also includes documentation on the purpose of valid XML
> > elements and attributes.
> >
> > A DTD effectively defines a public API which (I believe) is not
> > copyrightable. And there is very little "creative expression" in such a
> > file; there is really only one way to define a DTD that defines a
> > specific public API. In other words, given a plain-english description
> > of an XML document's format, the DTD created via a "clean-room" process
> > would result in an identical document -- except for any comments that
> > may be present.
> >
> > I presume the limitation on modification of these DTDs is really
> > pointing out that the DTD corresponds to a particular technical
> > specification, and modifying it would cause software to fail to be
> > compliant with that specification. There's certainly no *benefit* in
> > modifying the constraints defined in such a document if the apache
> > project is intending to implement the official specification. Modifying
> > any *comments* present, though, might be desirable.
>
> modifying these documents may put us in a more difficult position than
> simply creating clean room implementations. comments may well be
> copyrightable even when the base work is not (for example, annotated
> editions of classic texts).
What I'm saying is that if you delete all comments from the Sun
copyrighted DTD, then it would seem to me that what's left is not
copyrightable at all (just a public API) so the Sun copyright could then
be removed and the results checked back in.
Creating a "clean room" copy of this DTD is really pretty difficult; in
order to correctly comply with the sun-published public API the DTD
created would have to be *identical* to the original Sun one. That's
really the point I'm making - there is no "creative expression" in such
a DTD as there is only one way of expressing the correct constraints.
Of course I'm not a lawyer...
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 09:11 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote:
> Is it possible to copyright a DTD?
>
> NB: A "DTD" is a document which defines the format of an XML file, and
> is used to validate that an arbitrary document is of the expected
> format. It can also define default values for fields. Commonly such a
> document also includes documentation on the purpose of valid XML
> elements and attributes.
>
> A DTD effectively defines a public API which (I believe) is not
> copyrightable. And there is very little "creative expression" in such a
> file; there is really only one way to define a DTD that defines a
> specific public API. In other words, given a plain-english description
> of an XML document's format, the DTD created via a "clean-room" process
> would result in an identical document -- except for any comments that
> may be present.
>
> I presume the limitation on modification of these DTDs is really
> pointing out that the DTD corresponds to a particular technical
> specification, and modifying it would cause software to fail to be
> compliant with that specification. There's certainly no *benefit* in
> modifying the constraints defined in such a document if the apache
> project is intending to implement the official specification. Modifying
> any *comments* present, though, might be desirable.
modifying these documents may put us in a more difficult position than
simply creating clean room implementations. comments may well be
copyrightable even when the base work is not (for example, annotated
editions of classic texts).
- robert
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Simon Kitching <sk...@apache.org>.
Is it possible to copyright a DTD?
NB: A "DTD" is a document which defines the format of an XML file, and
is used to validate that an arbitrary document is of the expected
format. It can also define default values for fields. Commonly such a
document also includes documentation on the purpose of valid XML
elements and attributes.
A DTD effectively defines a public API which (I believe) is not
copyrightable. And there is very little "creative expression" in such a
file; there is really only one way to define a DTD that defines a
specific public API. In other words, given a plain-english description
of an XML document's format, the DTD created via a "clean-room" process
would result in an identical document -- except for any comments that
may be present.
I presume the limitation on modification of these DTDs is really
pointing out that the DTD corresponds to a particular technical
specification, and modifying it would cause software to fail to be
compliant with that specification. There's certainly no *benefit* in
modifying the constraints defined in such a document if the apache
project is intending to implement the official specification. Modifying
any *comments* present, though, might be desirable.
Cheers,
Simon
On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 13:55 -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Apache Geronimo includes a number of DTDs that contain this Sun Copyright:
>
> "Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio
> Road, Palo Alto, California 94303, U.S.A. All rights
> reserved."
>
> along with the following words which could be interpreted as T&Cs (or not):
>
> "This document and the product to which it pertains are distributed
> under licenses restricting their use, copying, distribution, and
> decompilation. This document may be reproduced and distributed but may
> not be changed without prior written authorization of Sun and its
> licensors, if any."
>
> The first sentence mentions "use, copying, distribution and decompilation"
>
> The 'terms' mention "reproduced and distributed". Notably absent is the word "use".
>
> Any opinions on whether we should be hosting these (unmodified of course) in an ASF repository?
>
> Bill
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
> > Here is what it says in the DTD:
> >
>
> >
> > So, from this blurb, it would appear we can include the DTDs and XSDs,
> > but we *cannot* change it. Would this be a correct assessment?
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> > Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >> Exactly the right question - the copyright isn't the issue, but the
> >> license is.
> >>
> >> Where did these schemas come from, and what are the listed terms?
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >> Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> >>>> 2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is
> >>>>> acceptable to change copyright statements is when
> >>>>> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
> >>>> Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
> >>>> allowed to store them in the repo, either.
> >>>>
> >>> That's the wrong question. ASF repositories contain lots of code for
> >>> which the ASF is not the copyright owner. Whether we are allowed to
> >>> store code in our repositories depends on the license terms and
> >>> conditions issued by the copyright holder. What are the T&C's for
> >>> this code? Do we know?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
Apache Geronimo includes a number of DTDs that contain this Sun Copyright:
"Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio
Road, Palo Alto, California 94303, U.S.A. All rights
reserved."
along with the following words which could be interpreted as T&Cs (or not):
"This document and the product to which it pertains are distributed
under licenses restricting their use, copying, distribution, and
decompilation. This document may be reproduced and distributed but may
not be changed without prior written authorization of Sun and its
licensors, if any."
The first sentence mentions "use, copying, distribution and decompilation"
The 'terms' mention "reproduced and distributed". Notably absent is the word "use".
Any opinions on whether we should be hosting these (unmodified of course) in an ASF repository?
Bill
Jeff Genender wrote:
> Here is what it says in the DTD:
>
>
> So, from this blurb, it would appear we can include the DTDs and XSDs,
> but we *cannot* change it. Would this be a correct assessment?
>
> Jeff
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Exactly the right question - the copyright isn't the issue, but the
>> license is.
>>
>> Where did these schemas come from, and what are the listed terms?
>>
>> geir
>>
>> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>> 2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is
>>>>> acceptable to change copyright statements is when
>>>>> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
>>>> Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
>>>> allowed to store them in the repo, either.
>>>>
>>> That's the wrong question. ASF repositories contain lots of code for
>>> which the ASF is not the copyright owner. Whether we are allowed to
>>> store code in our repositories depends on the license terms and
>>> conditions issued by the copyright holder. What are the T&C's for
>>> this code? Do we know?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Bill Stoddard did us a favor and brought it to legal (Thanks Bill S.).
We'll see what they come up with.
Jeff
Bill Dudney wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This can't be the first time this has ever come up can it? Many of the
> xsd and dtd's that are in G for J2EE 1.4 were copied from Tomcat 5.x
> so they had to have gotten this straightened out, right? ;-)
>
> I'd be happy to get the conversation going with legal, but its probably
> better that it come from a G committer.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Bill Dudney
> MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org
>
> On Mar 9, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
>> Here is what it says in the DTD:
>>
>> "This document and the product to which it pertains are distributed
>> under licenses restricting their use, copying, distribution, and
>> decompilation. This document may be reproduced and distributed but may
>> not be changed without prior written authorization of Sun and its
>> licensors, if any."
>>
>> So, from this blurb, it would appear we can include the DTDs and XSDs,
>> but we *cannot* change it. Would this be a correct assessment?
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>> Exactly the right question - the copyright isn't the issue, but the
>>> license is.
>>>
>>> Where did these schemas come from, and what are the listed terms?
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>>> 2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is
>>>>>> acceptable to change copyright statements is when
>>>>>> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
>>>>> allowed to store them in the repo, either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's the wrong question. ASF repositories contain lots of code for
>>>> which the ASF is not the copyright owner. Whether we are allowed to
>>>> store code in our repositories depends on the license terms and
>>>> conditions issued by the copyright holder. What are the T&C's for
>>>> this code? Do we know?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the repo
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi all,
This can't be the first time this has ever come up can it? Many of
the xsd and dtd's that are in G for J2EE 1.4 were copied from
Tomcat 5.x so they had to have gotten this straightened out, right? ;-)
I'd be happy to get the conversation going with legal, but its
probably better that it come from a G committer.
Thoughts?
Bill Dudney
MyFaces - myfaces.apache.org
On Mar 9, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> Here is what it says in the DTD:
>
> "This document and the product to which it pertains are distributed
> under licenses restricting their use, copying, distribution, and
> decompilation. This document may be reproduced and distributed but
> may
> not be changed without prior written authorization of Sun and its
> licensors, if any."
>
> So, from this blurb, it would appear we can include the DTDs and XSDs,
> but we *cannot* change it. Would this be a correct assessment?
>
> Jeff
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Exactly the right question - the copyright isn't the issue, but the
>> license is.
>>
>> Where did these schemas come from, and what are the listed terms?
>>
>> geir
>>
>> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>> 2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is
>>>>> acceptable to change copyright statements is when
>>>>> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
>>>>
>>>> Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
>>>> allowed to store them in the repo, either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's the wrong question. ASF repositories contain lots of code for
>>> which the ASF is not the copyright owner. Whether we are allowed to
>>> store code in our repositories depends on the license terms and
>>> conditions issued by the copyright holder. What are the T&C's for
>>> this code? Do we know?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Here is what it says in the DTD:
"This document and the product to which it pertains are distributed
under licenses restricting their use, copying, distribution, and
decompilation. This document may be reproduced and distributed but may
not be changed without prior written authorization of Sun and its
licensors, if any."
So, from this blurb, it would appear we can include the DTDs and XSDs,
but we *cannot* change it. Would this be a correct assessment?
Jeff
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Exactly the right question - the copyright isn't the issue, but the
> license is.
>
> Where did these schemas come from, and what are the listed terms?
>
> geir
>
> Bill Stoddard wrote:
>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>> 2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
>>>
>>>> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is
>>>> acceptable to change copyright statements is when
>>>> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
>>>
>>> Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
>>> allowed to store them in the repo, either.
>>>
>>
>> That's the wrong question. ASF repositories contain lots of code for
>> which the ASF is not the copyright owner. Whether we are allowed to
>> store code in our repositories depends on the license terms and
>> conditions issued by the copyright holder. What are the T&C's for
>> this code? Do we know?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Exactly the right question - the copyright isn't the issue, but the
license is.
Where did these schemas come from, and what are the listed terms?
geir
Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>> 2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
>>
>>> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is acceptable
>>> to change copyright statements is when
>>> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
>>
>> Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
>> allowed to store them in the repo, either.
>>
>
> That's the wrong question. ASF repositories contain lots of code for
> which the ASF is not the copyright owner. Whether we are allowed to
> store code in our repositories depends on the license terms and
> conditions issued by the copyright holder. What are the T&C's for this
> code? Do we know?
>
> Bill
>
>
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> 2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
>
>> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is acceptable to change copyright statements is when
>> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
>
> Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
> allowed to store them in the repo, either.
>
That's the wrong question. ASF repositories contain lots of code for which the ASF is not the copyright owner.
Whether we are allowed to store code in our repositories depends on the license terms and conditions issued by
the copyright holder. What are the T&C's for this code? Do we know?
Bill
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the repo
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <el...@gmail.com>.
2006/3/9, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>:
> Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is acceptable to change copyright statements is when
> the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
Has it been assigned? If not, my understanding is that we're not
allowed to store them in the repo, either.
> Bill
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.org.pl
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It struck me while I was about to commit Bill's patch
> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1686). Some files in it
> (and in j2ee-schema module, actually), contain
>
> Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio
> Road, Palo Alto, California 94303, U.S.A. All rights
> reserved.
>
> What are the rules to store such files in our repo? Since they're in
> our repo, they're ours and I was changing the header of the files in
> Bill's patch to reference the ASL 2.0 license,
> but am not sure if I'm
> allowed to. If I'm not, they should not be in our repo, either.
>
> Is there a mistake in my reasoning? ;) Desparately looking for a guidance...
>
> Jacek
Jacek,
Don't change the copyright statements. The only time it is acceptable to change copyright statements is when
the copyright holder has assigned copyright ownership to the ASF.
Bill
Re: Sun copyrights and our rights to include certain files in the
repo
Posted by Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>.
Yeah, I think we need some discussion here and maybe bring this up in
legal@a.o.
Many of the xsds/dtds we use for Geronimo specs seem to have the Sun
copyright in them, and/or are used verbatim from Sun with all comments, etc.
In fact in the JIRA issue, GERONIMO-1686, Jacek pointed out that the
web-app_2_3.dtd that Bill Dudney was submitting as a patch contained the
Sun copyright. Further examination shows that this DTD is already in
our repos, with ful Sun copyright and all, that comes with the
geronimo-j2ee-schema module. In fact, further search yielded the
following with Sun's copyright attached:
Geronimo
---------
web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd (3 matches)
web-app_2_4.xsd (3 matches)
jsp_2_0.xsd (3 matches)
j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd (3 matches)
j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd (3 matches)
j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd (3 matches)
j2ee_1_4.xsd (3 matches)
ejb-jar_2_1.xsd (3 matches)
connector_1_5.xsd (3 matches)
application-client_1_4.xsd (3 matches)
application_1_4.xsd (3 matches)
Geronimo Specs
--------------
jsp_2_0.xsd
web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
j2ee_1_4.xsd
j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
web-app_2_3.dtd
web-app_2_4.xsd
web-jsptaglibrary_1_2.dtd
web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
What is Apache's stance on this and what are the legalities regarding
the use of the copyright in the XSDs and DTDs?
Jeff
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It struck me while I was about to commit Bill's patch
> (http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-1686). Some files in it
> (and in j2ee-schema module, actually), contain
>
> Copyright 2003 Sun Microsystems, Inc., 901 San Antonio
> Road, Palo Alto, California 94303, U.S.A. All rights
> reserved.
>
> What are the rules to store such files in our repo? Since they're in
> our repo, they're ours and I was changing the header of the files in
> Bill's patch to reference the ASL 2.0 license, but am not sure if I'm
> allowed to. If I'm not, they should not be in our repo, either.
>
> Is there a mistake in my reasoning? ;) Desparately looking for a guidance...
>
> Jacek
>
> --
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.org.pl