4:30 p.m.
Hi all,
One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub Terms
of Service:
---
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a
license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by the
shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
(https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/)
---
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity Python
projects:
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to the
GitHub ToS).
Thoughts or concerns?
Heather
5:06 p.m.
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 17:30, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com> wrote:
Hi all,
One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub Terms
of Service:
---
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a
license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by the
shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
(https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/)
---
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity Python
projects:
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to the
GitHub ToS).
Thoughts or concerns?
I am very happy if this can be resolved that way :) I did not know of
that section in the GitHub TOS and it's good it is there. I expect
things to work that way by default -IMO, this should be the mentality
when working with open source- though, I understand that the legal
system does not work the way things are arranged in my head. If this
covers the legal aspects of (re)licensing that is a big time saver. I
suppose though, that we may have to look into _when_ this was
introduced to the Github TOS and make sure it stands for contributions
made before that date.
I had briefly looked over how other organisations handle this, and I
think (from what I understand) that MPL (by Mozilla) is interesting,
as it seems to "combine" the CLA into the license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/can-mozilla-public-lice…
Re-lisencing is not free, but by contributing one agrees with the
license terms and copyright "transfer".
btw, GitHub itself used to have a CLA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160329164819/https://cla.github.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20161026203954/https://cla.github.com/agreement
I guess they do not need it anymore with the updated TOS.
Cheers,
--
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
5:32 p.m.
On 6/22/18 8:06 AM, Ivan Kanakarakis wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2018 at 17:30, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com> wrote:
This text was finalized in 2017. See:
https://blog.github.com/2017-02-28-new-github-terms-of-service-are-in-effec…
Or, if you want to go directly to the diff:
https://gist.github.com/nsqe/f961486a7167a9d93d3beeba0b5b4b04/revisions
That said, if a user did not agree to the new ToS, they are expected to
take their toys and go home.
For the Identity Python repositories that existed before February 2017:
SATOSA - updated its license two years ago to an Apache 2.0 license
(repository appears to have started three years ago)
pyeleven - updated its license five months ago to a 2-clause BSD license
(repository appears to have started four years ago)
pyXMLSec - started with a 2-clause BSD license six years ago
pyFF - updated its license to a 2-clause BSD license five months ago;
not sure what it did when it started six years ago
pySAML2 - has had an Apache2 license since at least three years ago;
license file was updated (renamed) a few days ago
-Heather
Hi all,
One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub Terms
of Service:
---
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a
license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by the
shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
(https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/)
---
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity Python
projects:
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to the
GitHub ToS).
Thoughts or concerns?
I am very happy if this can be resolved that way :) I did not know of
that section in the GitHub TOS and it's good it is there. I expect
things to work that way by default -IMO, this should be the mentality
when working with open source- though, I understand that the legal
system does not work the way things are arranged in my head. If this
covers the legal aspects of (re)licensing that is a big time saver. I
suppose though, that we may have to look into _when_ this was
introduced to the Github TOS and make sure it stands for contributions
made before that date.
I had briefly looked over how other organisations handle this, and I
think (from what I understand) that MPL (by Mozilla) is interesting,
as it seems to "combine" the CLA into the license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Public_License
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/can-mozilla-public-lice…
Re-lisencing is not free, but by contributing one agrees with the
license terms and copyright "transfer".
btw, GitHub itself used to have a CLA:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160329164819/https://cla.github.com/
https://web.archive.org/web/20161026203954/https://cla.github.com/agreement
I guess they do not need it anymore with the updated TOS.
Cheers,
--
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
5:58 p.m.
On 6/22/18 10:30 AM, Heather Flanagan wrote:
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't
actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to the
GitHub ToS).
Putting aside the question as to whether we should be using GitHub at
all, I'm reminded of a thread I was reading where people were making the
usual complaints about how dense legalese is. The answer is because when
you speak in simple, general terms you are often glossing over a lot of
detail, and in many cases this detail has real-world, legal effect.
CLAs give us many assurances that we don't already have by using GitHub
and posting licenses. For example "inbound=outbound" assumes you will
never want or need to change the license. If for some reason we need to,
without CLAs it will be impossible, we would have to rewrite the
affected code from scratch.
Or here's a problem with the agreement you excerpted: "and you agree
that you have the right to license your contribution under those terms".
Well, what if the author doesn't actually have the right to license the
contribution? What if a company decides its employee improperly
committed commercially viable IPR? In many employer/employee
relationships (varying internationally, but the case for at least some
contributors to this codebase), the CLA is what explicitly documents the
employee's right to contribute the code. You can agree that you have the
right, but if you don't actually have the right, the legal status of the
code becomes murky and that is not a situation that is favorable to the
project.
There's a reason that CLAs are longer than one paragraph... They cover
all of these edge cases. Ultimately, though, as we've discussed before
this comes down to a risk assessment. Taking the easier path now puts us
in a riskier situation over the long term. Is it too risky? Maybe...
maybe not...
Thanks,
-Benn-
9:22 a.m.
Hi all,
On 22-06-18 16:30, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Hi all,
One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub
Terms of Service:
---
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of
a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by
the shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
(https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/)
---
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity
Python projects:
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to
the GitHub ToS).
The Github TOS as I read them does indeed help a lot when it comes to
the license. I see no reason not to use that. perhaps we should make it
a bit more explicit by e.g. adding a line pointing to this in each
README.md?
The TOS doe not however concern the IPR I think?
For e.g. pyXMLSecurity several have contributed as part of NORDUnet, but
I do not think that is the case for all (e.g. Ian). Furthermore, some of
the work was done under the GEANT project, which, in line with the
project agreement also needs to be reflected in the copyright statement(s).
Niels
--
Niels van Dijk Technical Product Manager Trust & Security
Mob: +31 651347657 | Skype: cdr-80 | PGP Key ID: 0xDE7BB2F5
SURFnet BV | PO.Box 19035 | NL-3501 DA Utrecht | The Netherlands
www.surfnet.nl www.openconext.org
8:53 p.m.
On 6/25/18 12:22 AM, Niels van Dijk wrote:
Hi all,
On 22-06-18 16:30, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Well, yes and no (unless you think IPR means something other than
copyright, patents, and trademarks). My understanding of the GitHub ToS
say that the license file in the repository applies to the contributions
in that repository. The Apache 2 license file in the pySAML2
repositories cover copyright and patent licensing. The SUNET and
NORDUnet license files only touches on copyright ownership (with the
owner being SUNET and an individual).
If GEANT posted it's own license and copyright on code submitted to
pySAML2 and Satosa, I think they went against the GitHub ToS.
And, as always, IANAL.
-Heather
Hi all,
One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub
Terms of Service:
---
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of
a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by
the shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
(https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/)
---
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity
Python projects:
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to
the GitHub ToS).
The Github TOS as I read them does indeed help a lot when it comes to
the license. I see no reason not to use that. perhaps we should make it
a bit more explicit by e.g. adding a line pointing to this in each
README.md?
The TOS doe not however concern the IPR I think?
For e.g. pyXMLSecurity several have contributed as part of NORDUnet, but
I do not think that is the case for all (e.g. Ian). Furthermore, some of
the work was done under the GEANT project, which, in line with the
project agreement also needs to be reflected in the copyright statement(s).
Niels
9:54 p.m.
On 25 Jun 2018, at 20:53, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com> wrote:
On 6/25/18 12:22 AM, Niels van Dijk wrote:
Didn’t happen, at least regarding pySAML2 and it was by design.
Hi all,
On 22-06-18 16:30, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Well, yes and no (unless you think IPR means something other than copyright, patents, and
trademarks). My understanding of the GitHub ToS say that the license file in the
repository applies to the contributions in that repository. The Apache 2 license file in
the pySAML2 repositories cover copyright and patent licensing. The SUNET and NORDUnet
license files only touches on copyright ownership (with the owner being SUNET and an
individual).
If GEANT posted it's own license and copyright on code submitted to pySAML2 and
Satosa, I think they went against the GitHub ToS. Hi all,
One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub
Terms of Service:
---
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of
a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by
the shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
(https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/)
---
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity
Python projects:
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to
the GitHub ToS).
The Github TOS as I read them does indeed help a lot when it comes to
the license. I see no reason not to use that. perhaps we should make it
a bit more explicit by e.g. adding a line pointing to this in each
README.md?
The TOS doe not however concern the IPR I think?
For e.g. pyXMLSecurity several have contributed as part of NORDUnet, but
I do not think that is the case for all (e.g. Ian). Furthermore, some of
the work was done under the GEANT project, which, in line with the
project agreement also needs to be reflected in the copyright statement(s). And, as always, IANAL.
-Heather
— Roland
The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make
enough of them, it's considered to be your style.
-Fred Astaire, dancer, actor, singer, musician, and choreographer (10 May 1899-1987)
Niels
_______________________________________________
Idpy-discuss mailing list
Idpy-discuss at lists.sunet.se <mailto:Idpy-discuss at lists.sunet.se>
https://lists.sunet.se/listinfo/idpy-discuss
<https://lists.sunet.se/listinfo/idpy-discuss>
11:11 a.m.
Hi all,
On 25-06-18 21:54, Roland Hedberg wrote:
I am not suggesting to have GEANT claim ownership etc. That is not
needed. While the GEANT project has its own licence, the GEANT project
accepts an acceptable prior license, and the Apache2 license is one of
these, so that is just fine. As Roland says, we knew this and we made
sure we designed it in this way.
The only thing needed is attribution. The line would probably something
like:
"Contributions to this work are part of a project that has received
funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under Grant Agreement No. 691567 (GN4-1)."
SUNET and NORDUnet, by joining the GEANT project and by allowing e.g.
Roland and UMA University to work on these tools as part of that
project, have agreed to a number of things, among them this kind of
attribution. For the funding agency (the EU) it is critically important
to see they are being acknowledged, and so that make it also critically
important for the project.
Cheers,
Niels
--
Niels van Dijk Technical Product Manager Trust & Security
Mob: +31 651347657 | Skype: cdr-80 | PGP Key ID: 0xDE7BB2F5
SURFnet BV | PO.Box 19035 | NL-3501 DA Utrecht | The Netherlands
www.surfnet.nl www.openconext.org
On 25 Jun 2018, at 20:53, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com
<mailto:hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com>> wrote:
On 6/25/18 12:22 AM, Niels van Dijk wrote:
Didn’t happen, at least regarding pySAML2 and it was by design.
Hi all,
On 22-06-18 16:30, Heather Flanagan wrote:
Well, yes and no (unless you think IPR means something other than
copyright, patents, and trademarks). My understanding of the GitHub
ToS say that the license file in the repository applies to the
contributions in that repository. The Apache 2 license file in the
pySAML2 repositories cover copyright and patent licensing. The SUNET
and NORDUnet license files only touches on copyright ownership (with
the owner being SUNET and an individual).
If GEANT posted it's own license and copyright on code submitted to
pySAML2 and Satosa, I think they went against the GitHub ToS. Hi all,
One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub
Terms of Service:
---
6. Contributions Under Repository License
Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of
a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
agreement will supersede.
Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by
the shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
(https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/)
---
I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity
Python projects:
* pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
* SaToSa = Apache 2.0
* pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
* pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
* pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to
the GitHub ToS).
The Github TOS as I read them does indeed help a lot when it comes to
the license. I see no reason not to use that. perhaps we should make it
a bit more explicit by e.g. adding a line pointing to this in each
README.md?
The TOS doe not however concern the IPR I think?
For e.g. pyXMLSecurity several have contributed as part of NORDUnet, but
I do not think that is the case for all (e.g. Ian). Furthermore, some of
the work was done under the GEANT project, which, in line with the
project agreement also needs to be reflected in the copyright
statement(s).
11:13 a.m.
Totally agree !
On 26 Jun 2018, at 11:11, Niels van Dijk
<niels.vandijk at surfnet.nl> wrote:
Hi all,
On 25-06-18 21:54, Roland Hedberg wrote:
I am not suggesting to have GEANT claim ownership etc. That is not needed. While the
GEANT project has its own licence, the GEANT project accepts an acceptable prior license,
and the Apache2 license is one of these, so that is just fine. As Roland says, we knew
this and we made sure we designed it in this way.
The only thing needed is attribution. The line would probably something like:
"Contributions to this work are part of a project that has received funding from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No.
691567 (GN4-1)."
SUNET and NORDUnet, by joining the GEANT project and by allowing e.g. Roland and UMA
University to work on these tools as part of that project, have agreed to a number of
things, among them this kind of attribution. For the funding agency (the EU) it is
critically important to see they are being acknowledged, and so that make it also
critically important for the project.
Cheers,
Niels
--
Niels van Dijk Technical Product Manager Trust & Security
Mob: +31 651347657 | Skype: cdr-80 | PGP Key ID: 0xDE7BB2F5
SURFnet BV | PO.Box 19035 | NL-3501 DA Utrecht | The Netherlands
www.surfnet.nl <http://www.surfnet.nl/>
www.openconext.org <http://www.openconext.org/>
— Roland
The higher up you go, the more mistakes you are allowed. Right at the top, if you make
enough of them, it's considered to be your style.
-Fred Astaire, dancer, actor, singer, musician, and choreographer (10 May 1899-1987)
On 25 Jun 2018, at 20:53, Heather Flanagan
<hlflanagan at sphericalcowgroup.com <mailto:hlflanagan at
sphericalcowgroup.com>> wrote:
On 6/25/18 12:22 AM, Niels van Dijk wrote:
Didn’t happen, at least regarding pySAML2 and it was by design.
Hi all,
On 22-06-18 16:30, Heather Flanagan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> One of the individuals I contacted when I was reaching out about the
> possibility of a [C]CLA pointed out the following from the GitHub
> Terms of Service:
>
> ---
> 6. Contributions Under Repository License
>
> Whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of
> a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and you
> agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those
> terms. If you have a separate agreement to license your contributions
> under different terms, such as a contributor license agreement, that
> agreement will supersede.
>
> Isn't this just how it works already? Yep. This is widely accepted as
> the norm in the open-source community; it's commonly referred to by
> the shorthand "inbound=outbound". We're just making it explicit.
>
> (https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/
<https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service/>)
> ---
>
> I've also reviewed the licenses listed under each of the Identity
> Python projects:
>
> * pySAML2 = Apache 2.0
> * SaToSa = Apache 2.0
> * pyXMLSecurity = NORDUnet (2 clause BSD)
> * pyFF = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
> * pyeleven = SUNET (2 clause BSD)
>
> My reading of this suggests that a CLA doesn't actually offer us any
> assurances we don't already have by a) using GitHub (and therefore
> agreeing to the ToS) and b) posting the licenses in the repos (which
> must be inherited by anyone posting in those repos, again thanks to
> the GitHub ToS).
>
>
The Github TOS as I read them does indeed help a lot when it comes to
the license. I see no reason not to use that. perhaps we should make it
a bit more explicit by e.g. adding a line pointing to this in each
README.md?
The TOS doe not however concern the IPR I think?
For e.g. pyXMLSecurity several have contributed as part of NORDUnet, but
I do not think that is the case for all (e.g. Ian). Furthermore, some of
the work was done under the GEANT project, which, in line with the
project agreement also needs to be reflected in the copyright statement(s).
Well, yes and no (unless you think IPR means something other than copyright, patents, and
trademarks). My understanding of the GitHub ToS say that the license file in the
repository applies to the contributions in that repository. The Apache 2 license file in
the pySAML2 repositories cover copyright and patent licensing. The SUNET and NORDUnet
license files only touches on copyright ownership (with the owner being SUNET and an
individual).
If GEANT posted it's own license and copyright on code submitted to pySAML2 and
Satosa, I think they went against the GitHub ToS.
12:51 p.m.
Hi everyone,
We will be reviving this discussion in order to make a decision and
move forward. Incidentally, I stumbled upon this issue[0] of
pyca/cryptography library that was the point of discussion when they
decided to relicense the library - they went through all the
contributors and explicitly asked for permission.
[0]: https://github.com/pyca/cryptography/issues/1209
Cheers,
--
Ivan c00kiemon5ter Kanakarakis >:3
2043
days inactive
2132
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
benno＠sphericalcowgroup.com -
hlflanagan＠sphericalcowgroup.com -
ivan.kanak＠gmail.com -
niels.vandijk＠surfnet.nl -
roland＠catalogix.se