Slashdot Mirror
Apache says ASL2.0 is GPL-compatible
Steve Loughran writes "The ASF board have put up on the Apache Web site, a page
rebutting claims that the new ASL2.0 license is incompatible with the GPL, claims made by on an
FSF page and covered in
Slashdot last week.The key points are (1) The interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF, it is designed to be rigorously defendable in a court of law.
(2) Rather than look at opinions about compatibility, people should look at the
ASF2.0 and GPL licenses to see if they really are compatible.
(3) If you look at the two licenses, they really are compatible.
This means there is nothing to stop you linking your [L]GPL apps against apache libraries, shipping them with apache applications, and the like." Of course, this is still up to debate.
1) The interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF, it is designed to be rigorously defendable in a court of law.
(2) Rather than look at opinions about compatibility, people should look at the ASF2.0 and GPL licenses to see if they really are compatible.
(2) If you look at the two licenses, they really are compatible.
I'd learn how to count first.
If there's a debate at all, it's not worth wasting your time thinking about it.
This is why people like the BSD license.
This is why OpenBSD forks code when others play stupid license tricks. If anyone has to think about what a license might mean, then they're not busy fixing bugs. Pseudo-Clever-Licensing keeps lawyers happy and programmers unproductive.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
A most excellent point.
The owls are not what they seem
So now Linux users can baske themselves in the glow of online dating too?
That's what I call progress!
It also says that versions 1.0 and 1.1 of the ASF License are incompatible... why are we only hearing about this with version 2.0?
libertarianswag.com
In the hypothetical situation in which the APL is determined to be incompatible with the GPL, you could still link (L)GPL apps to Apache project code, because the Apache code would effectively be distributed under two licenses--the APL, and a slightly modified APL to make it GPL-compatible. They say as much by admitting that you can use Apache project code in GPL'd projects.
Wow, that (the actual linked article) is a very stinging reply to the comment on FSF's site. It hits home (lambasting people on Slashdot for bitching before getting their facts straight) and was way overdue.
According to the article, the comment that caused such a ruckus has not been attributed to any official at FSF and not been communicated to Apache by the FSF.
IANAL, but why can't the Apache people add a clause to their license that explicitly proclaims compatibility with some rev of GPL? If the compatiblity clause supercedes other clauses in Apache's license, then there really is no legal grounds for anyone later proclaiming that they are incompatible.
I never trust people that say "trust me, the contract can be interpreted in the way that you want it to." If someone wants a legal document to have a particular property, then the document should explicitly state that it has that property. But again, IANAL.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Is the GPL APL-compatible? Is the GPL compatible with /any/ other license? No. However, the FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible.
You just know that the author of the Apache rebuttal page wanted to end his analysis with: "So get bent."
Apache is a pretty good piece of software and if folks don't like the new license, well that's just tough. They have a right to license their code however they choose to. The people who write to them and tell them otherwise really do need to drop off the planet.
-sirket
... Is an ignorant statement. Some authors decide to release their code under a certain license, and people bitch. If ASL doesn't play nice with the GPL, that is unfortunate... and we might have to look at something else. Then again, Apache 1.x is working great as far as I can tell. But these license zealots whining about how the "BSD/ASL/XFree/GPL sucks" are really just ignorant. If I write some code, and don't want it to be sucked up by a profit-making corporation without my consent, and without recieving any credit, that's my own fucking business! By the same token, if I want my code to be able to be used by whomever wants it, again, that's my own fucking business!
One of the major advantages of the ASL 2.0 is that it is now easier for non-ASF projects to use the ASL. Previously you had to use an ASL-like license because unless you wanted to assign your copyright to the ASF you needed to adjust the wording of the license to include your name and your organization. The new license removes that information from the license itself and instead places it in a NOTICE file. This allows other open source projects to take advantage of the ASL and use it for their own organization.
While the ASL 2.0 is longer than the ASL 1.1, it's worth a read. A lot of effort was made to make this an easy license to adopt and use. If you're currently using a MIT or BSD style license, you may want to consider the new ASL 2.0.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
what do care what licenses other people choose?
True, everyone chooses the license they want, the one they are comfortable with. In the OSS world, there are a lot of licenses and the GPL is probably the less free of all, that's all the parent is saying.
fuck them all - i am coding for fun and _no_one_ will tell me which license to choose or which feature to add
There is a time to code for fun, and - as you will see when you will be a little more mature - there is a time for reward, or some form of retribution. If you "fuck all" your users, you will get no reward. You don't even need to get a license because you probably don't care about any distribution in the first place.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Looks like point 2 is repeated with two different phrasings.
Perhaps the following summary is more clear.
2- Rather then listen to opinions, see for yourself. If you look at the two licenses they really are compatible.
"_Your_ code will always remain free, what do you care if someone else adds to it?"
Because some people DO care. If they want to share their code but only with people who will share their modifications (non-internal use only), that is their right.
The different licenses support different developmental methodologies and agendas.
S/He who writes the code chooses the license and if you don't like that, then write your own code.
Unfortunately distributing non-GPLd software with Linux is asking for trouble. Linux is the best-selling open software product and choosing any other license than GPL means an extra hurdle for your software.
But I guess that's exactly the kind of "freedom" RMS likes. Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.
The owls are not what they seem
How about looking at it in terms of economic motivation? For certain types of people (arguably, most people), the GPL provides incentive to create free software where otherwise one wouldn't have bothered. Without the GPL, some of them might begrudgingly release code under a public domain-ish license, but most these people would either be coding proprietary software or not at all.
Which world would you rather have? A world with the GPL as a licensing option, or a world without it? The first world has more free software available, software that respects the rights of the user instead of trying to control the user through EULAs and insidious distribution terms. Regardless of the moaning of anti-GPL types like yourself I'll take the first world where I have more choice as a user and as a creative producer. Begrudging others of their choices when it comes at no cost to you is simply ridiculous. Nobody is going to be sympathetic to your whining because you can't have others' work on YOUR terms.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
I will release code under any damn license I please. Yes I do prefer to keep some sort of control "meaning some asshole cannot sell me back my own code" so I CHOOSE to release under the GPL instead of a BSD license.
Got Code?
Great. Now running GNU over Power Lines interferes with Apache. Just wait until the HAMS who run amateur radio websites hear about this.
Oh...wait...
Programmers get irritated with management, sales, supervisors, and especially users when they can't write a specification for us to write programs. We bitch because they're vague and contradictory. They change their minds, can't decide what they want, and try to please all the wrong people with all of the wrong features.
As someone who empathises with users trying to get a workable program, these kinds of license wars crack me up. The next time you complain about the spec being inadaquate or changing: remember that programmers too are mostly incapable of expressing what they want in English and pleasing all of their masters.
Get off my lawn.
The GPL isn't about the freedom of the people who use it, it's about the freedom of the *software*.
Of course, 'free' isn't probably the best word here; the Creative Commons licenses hit the nail on the head with "share alike".
This is off-topic, but...
Most of the software licenses (BSD, GPL, etc) debated here have their basic origins in copyright and ideas about intellectual property that are distinctly American/European in origin.
Is there any such thing or is anyone aware of software licensing schemes that are more organically based on non-Western ideas of intellectual property or copyright concepts?
The western bias of these licenses makes sense in that they're primarily issued and used in western countries, and hence, need to be oriented towards western IP and copyright models.
But as software development and usage grows in places like China and India, will we see PPL (People's Public License) or IPL (Indian Public License) with terms or concepts different than GPL/BSD, etc?
Now, I usually don't get this annoyed, but we've gone through a bunch of these recently, and I'm sick of it.
The GPL is not Holy Scripture
The GPL is nice. It works for a large amount of stuff. However, it very much does NOT work for many other things, even in the Open Source world. I don't (and you shouldn't) want everything to be GPL'd. The GPL has a LOT of problems, freedom to copy aside. It is definitely not suitable for every purpose, given our current legal framework.
We should measure a license by how obnoxious and restrictive it is, not some idiot litmus test of GPL-compatibility. I prefer that we gravitate to a small number of general licenses for simplicity's sake, but there is no real good reason that they all HAVE to be GPL-compatible, any more than they all HAVE to be BSD-compatible.
The various ASL versions are all very benign and nice BSD-ish licenses, that may or may not be GPL compatible. They have very liberal code reuse and copying provisions, and very few restrictions. If they are GPL-incompatible, well, then, that's life. I'm not going to get angry over this, any more than I get upset because I can't use GPL libraries with my proprietary code.
Please quite focusing on the idiotic minutia, and pay attention to the hard issues of license lock-in and IP coralling prevelant in software licensing today.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
SCO apparently beleives the GPL is SCO License compatible... which just goes to show what somebody thinks doesn't mean jack until you test it in court.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
>Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.
yes, whereas in America your political opinion had no effect on the jobs you could have did.. oh, er....
The Free Software Foundation has the "four freedoms" by which you can judge the freedom of something, the OSI have their (derived) "open source definition".
The GPL is merely the embodiment of these values, but not the only one by any means.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
Here's what Linux Torvalds said when asked if he wished he'd chosen a different license the GPL:
Absolutely not. I personally think that the BSD license is a dead end for serious projects, since it inevitably results in forking with no way to re-join if it becomes commercially viable.
Forking a project is in my opinion hugely important, since forks are how all real development gets done, and the ability to fork keeps everybody honest (i.e. if you don't do a good job and keep your users happy, they can always fork the project and go on their own). But equally important is the ability to join back forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can really think of the whole license as nothing more than a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project from either side.
Certainly they're right that the text of the licence, not the opinion of the FSF, is what matters. However, they seem to not understand their own licence:
Actually, the Apache License says more than that. It says "any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate" if you file certain lawsuits. Without patent licenses, in theory you can't even run the software. (Which is why software patents are evil, stupid, and must be destroyed.)
The Apache License can take away your right to use the software by revoking patent licenses (admittedly, only if you behave like a scumbag, but that's beside the point).This is what is not permitted under the GPL. The GPL states "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"; a license that says "you can't use this software if you behave like a scumbag and file patent lawsuits" is not compatible with this requirement.
Again, it's not necessarily a bad idea (as the FSF page notes). But it is not GPL-compatible.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You cannot take code under X licence and release it under Y.
(Fill in the licence).
Seriously, I don't think you understand how licences work.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
The ASF statement actually is really useful, because in essence they are saying they think its GPL compatible, so there are no issues on their side.
Its irrelevant however because Apache is built upon a set of non GPL compliant libraries like OpenSSL and always has been. "Apache 2.0 not GPL", well big deal: Apache 1.0 not GPL either.
You can probably build a non https:// Apache without a few other modules that is GPLable but everyone I've dealt with seems quite happy with the state of apache and the license it uses right now.
This is very different to the XFree 4.4 case where the rules got changed on people.
Its very much like "Windows 98 not GPL".. not news.
It depends on the terms of "X license".
The GPL is not just the agenda of an extremist code liberty organisation. It's also the basic constitution of a large part of the Internet.
The fact that Apache has been moving towards a GPL-compatible license and away from the more open earlier licenses shows that there is a desire to benefit from some of the protection that the GPL offers.
(As a free software author, I've made the same move from liberal BSD-style licenses to the GPL in the last years, swayed in part by Stallman's argument that anything less than the GPL helps commercial competitors more than open source developers.)
The compatibility of these two licenses is essential if we're to see Apache smoothly integrated into wider GPL'd frameworks.
The FSF appears quite flexible in considering changes to the GPL for future versions, and I suspect the Apache Group are important enough to push through what they need.
It's an important discussion and one I'll be following.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
If you took the time to read Apache Licenses, you'd find that License version 2.0 is not significantly different than previous versions, except that it aimed to be more compatible with GPL.
Not "more conservative" at all!
The GPL is compatible with any license less restrictive than it is.
The FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible because that is their job. They are responsible for maintaining and promoting the GPL and thus people look to them for definitive answers on what exactly what the GPL's place in the world is and what licenses it is and isn't compatible with.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
...than that of either the FSF or the ASF: the opinion of the copyright holder of the software. Granted, the copyrights to alot of important softwore have been deeded to the FSF, and thus, their opinion matters with regard to that software.
however, the key to all of this is that only the copyright holder to a piece of software can decide to bring a lawsuit. Thus, if the copyright holder thinks the licenses are compatible, then they damn well are (in that case only).
Bottom line: contact whoever owns the copyright to the software you want to use if you have any questions about your rights under the ASL or GPL.
cleetus
(a soon to be lawyer)
Unfortunately distributing non-GPLd software with Linux is asking for trouble. Linux is the best-selling open software product and choosing any other license than GPL means an extra hurdle for your software.
... so that more people, including those who chose to release their software under the GPL, can make use of their code (which is the primary interest of the BSD folks).
What a load of absolute crap.
There is absolutely no problem distributing non-GPLed software (even proprietary software) with Linux. Just because the kernel is GPLed doesn't mean the software which runs under it must also be GPLed. glibc is LGPLed (ie. you can link non-GPLed and proprietary software against it), asn are nearly all of the core libraries.
Oracle ships with Linux, and it is proprietary. XFree (pre 4.4) ships with Linux, and has (had) a BSD-ish (but GPL compatible) license. Openssh ships with Linux and has a BSD license. And this list goes on.
There is absolutely no issue whatsoever in distributing non-GPLed software with a GPLed operating system.
There is an issue with combining code from non-GPLed products and GPLed products into a new product, which is why XFree 4.4 is going the way of the Dodo, with virtually every distribution under the sun sticking with 4.3 or going with one of the forks (freedesktop.org or what have you), but that is a result of the amount of GPLed software linked to X libraries no one is willing to give up, not a result of the Linux operating system.
This is why Apache is working toward a GPL-compatable license, and why the FreeBSD folks went through the effort they did to make their license GPL compatible
And yes, this is the kind of Freedom RMS and others, such as myself, like: the freedom to chose the license we prefer for our code, which for many of us is a "share-alike" license such as the GPL.
And the results speak for themselves: the first viable competitor to go up against Microsoft in a generation (Linux), thousands of free software projects where the code is guaranteed to remain free in perpetuity, and widespread cooperation between two philosophical camps despite differing opinions on where to emphasize the freedom (developers a la the BSD, vs. users a la the GPL), rabblerousing from the proprietary sidelines via agent provocateurs, and their less intelligent cousins, trolls such as yourself, notwithstanding.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Which no one was doing anyway, since all the of the earlier Apache licenses were clearly and uncontroversially non-GPL-compatible.
The Apache Foundation does not and has never used the GPL on any of their work.
I'm rolling on the floor laughing at the mods that fell for this.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Have you, erm, looked at the Apache Software Foundation project list lately?
This isn't just about a license for the Apache HTTP server. In fact, it isn't even just about ASF projects either, since it offers independent developers a new choice of license to easily release their code under.
I always thought "A/S/L????" was BSD licensed, sine AOL has incorporated it as essential technology.
GPL Projects. There's about 16,000 listed on Freshmeat, and some of them include some good code which should be reused in other projects if possible.
If the new Apache license is GPL compatible, then source code released under that license can be redistributed linked to GPL code. If not, then to redistribute such a combined work you have to have either special permission from the authors of any GPLed components to put additional restrictions on their code or special permission from the authors of the non-GPLed components to rerelease their code with fewer restrictions. Since that's enough of a PITA that it will make code reuse less common, it would be very nice if it wasn't necessary.
So the disagreement is over whether clause 6 of the GPL:
applies to the patent grant. Does "rights granted herein" refer to the rights in clause 6 ("...copy, distribute, or modify...") or to all rights mentioned in the license?
I've been arguing parts of this issue since late last week, when I was contacted by members of Apache Cocoon in regard to their use of my software, Jisp.
A few months back, I began migrating all of my "free" software from the libpng/zlib license to the GPL. Let's not get into the reasons why I made the change; the change is made, and I'm pleased with it.
The Cocoon people discovered my license change, and opened a dialog. In their view, my use of GPL would force them to remove Jisp from Cocoon. They requested that I either change my license or add Jisp to the Apache collective. Beyond a few miscommunications, the discussion was pleasant and educational.
My software remains under the GPL (or a commercial license, for those so inclined). I did not want to join Apache, as I have already committed myself to FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) projects that are more closely aligned with my business and personal interests. I did not want to "give" Jisp to Apache, either, given that I have several paying customers who might be uncomfortable with such a move --and my personal interest in keep Jisp a small, one-man project.
In the end, Cocoon may not even need Jisp , rendering this an intellectual debate as opposed to a practical one.
Most of Cocoon's members were quite polite; a few were quite pushy and arrogant, although some of that may be due to the crossing of language barriers. In the end, I think we've reached a point of mutual respect. People can disagree on these issues, and remain friends.
Licensing issues are rapidly approaching the contentiousness of fundamentalist religion; people are Balkanizing the FOSS world over the finer points of dogma, rather than building a common framework in which we can all thrive.
All about me
Email message from Eben Moglen on license-discuss
But why do they do this through public statements on their webpages and/or public mailinglists. Can't these people lookup each other phone number? Really, if I honestly needed an opinion on something which seems so important as this from either the FSF or the Apache Foundation I would call them up (or send a private email) asking to discuss this in person to clear up any confusion that might result from random statements on some website and/or mailinglist. Neither the FSF or Apache did the community as a whole a service by not trying to talk this out first before publishing all these statements about each other.
In this particular instance I agree with Linus. However, it is very annoying that whenever there is an argument some one always posts Linus' opinion and presents it as THE ANSWER. He's just one famous nerd. Nothing more. You know what the buddists say.. If you meet Buddha waking down the road Kill Him. He will only be a distraction on your road to enlightement.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
You also have the FREEDOM to not use or contribute to GPL software source code. The 'proper' way is to have the contributors assign their copyright on the code to the organization/person managing the GPL product. Quite often this is the FSF as they will defend the license better than most others. If you are giving it to them then they are not stealing it.
--jeff++
ipv6 is my vpn
It sounds like there is a notion that there is something wrong with the new license for not being GPL compatible and that it should be changed. To some degree, it sounds like the new Apache license in safer and if anything, GPL should try to be more like it.
Sure, there's history and momentum to deal with, but are we going to be as inflexible and lethargic about improving our licenses as proprietary companies are with improving their code? The licensing issue needs to be dealt with, but lets try not to kill the better license. The patent clause ought to be added GPL, not removed from ASL.
The OSS/FS movements really need to get their licensing 'ducks' in a row...
Could you elaborate on this point with an example and an explanation? I fail to see how the GPL makes distributing non-GPL'd software with Linux any different than distributing non-GPL'd software with Windows or OS X. Indeed, the demo of UT2K3 was actually integrated into Gentoo Live CDs. I haven't heard of any OS release from Apple or Microsoft that has integrated major 3rd party software products into the install media itself beyond trivial OEM branding in icons and explorer enhancements.
Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.
Wow. The other day I was reading about the anti-gay marriage protesters in San Francisco. One apparently brandished a sign that read "I hate faggots, but love AIDS." I felt bad for those couples that have had to face that kind of hateful public censure until I read your post. Everything is in perspective now. It must really suck to be as oppressed as you.
The interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF... people should look at the ASF2.0 and GPL licenses to see if they really are compatible.
Heresy! The GPL means exactly what RMS says it means. No more and no less. Suggesting that people should read the GPL for themselves, indeed! Next thing you know you'll be suggesting people read the Bible for themselves instead of trusting in the Pope!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
No, no, no, you cannot relicence other people's software! If you could relicence BSD software as GPL, you would equally be able to take Microsoft Word and relicence it as BSD.
Compatibility is *exactly* that: software under one licence can be brought together with software from another. Yes, you need to obey both licences when you have such a derivative. No, this doesn't mean any software is relicensed.
If you still don't understand, tell me this: by what right may I take a piece of BSD software, and relicence it, given I am not the owner of the copyright? What legal right do I have to do that?
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
Licensing issues are rapidly approaching the contentiousness of fundamentalist religion; people are Balkanizing the FOSS world over the finer points of dogma, rather than building a common framework in which we can all thrive.
You mean like when people withold permission to use their free software with other free software because of dogmatic adherence to their One True License?
To put it bluntly, you are part of the problem. Either stop preaching or start dual-licensing your code.
That would be the BSD license.
That's kinda the whole point of the thing. You can't reassign the copyright, but that is not the same thing.
This is the whole difference between the GPL and the BSDL. BSDL allows redistribution under a more restrictive license, and the GPL only allows redistribution under the GPL. Saying "you would equally be able to take Microsoft Word and relicence it as BSD" is nonsense because I have no license to distribute MSWord at all.
Read the BSD license. "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:" It never says I can't distribute it with different conditions as long as my conditions include those in the original license.
IANAL (I am not a lawyer)
I DID read the XFree 4.4 License
I DID read the GPL
I DID read the ASL2.0
I am not disagreeing with Oct..30th
I am not fully agreeing either
Even XFree 4.4 license is not a "problem" per-say. They have some requirements that you tell people that they are using XFree in your documentation. That's it. That's the incompatability. So, that means that any piece of software that uses XFree should say so.
Because XFree doesn't inherantly use GPL software, they have the right to choose this license, freely.
Because of this many people will have to re-write some of their code if they want to compile it against NEW XFree libraries in binary form. (Still nothing needs to be changed for a source distribution model). So what's the big deal?
Yeah, if you are running an entire distribution, that would be a lot to change - once. Hell, it's really something that should have already been in there. Just as Internet Explorer - to THIS DAY - prominantly displays the fact that they use some of the code from NCSA Mosaic. So, you write something that links directly against XFree libraries to get what you need done? Say so!
From what I've read on /. and elsewhere, it seems. Many distributions are simply choosing not to use it YET because of the release-time restraints on labelling XFree use NOW. Some may find it easier to go with a different X platform. Some will not, but the labeling only serves to give each distribution pause to say, if we're going to change, now would be a good time to consider it.
Labelling is only decent, and it may help everyone understand the dependancies that programs have to each-other. Really, if all programs required this (in an "About Page" or "man page" form), then Linux would be a much easier place for me to live.
I am a primary Linux user and from my perspective, dependancy labelling would help out with dependancy hell.
Code released under the GPL may be included in projects with thse liceances:
GPL
Nope. Or to be more precise, that's only partially true. The project as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL if portions are GPL'd, but portions that are not GPL'd, but are merely under a compatible license, are still under that compatible license. Thus (practical actual working real-world example here), I have a project that is BSD'd except for one module (an EMACS connector) that is GPL'd. Thus, the whole thing is distributed under the terms of the GPL, but the module is completely separate, and if you delete it, what you are left with is a BSD'd project. If the GPL prevented this, I would have to distribute the module separately, which would be stupid and pointless, but it doesn't, so I don't.
The BSD license allows sublicensing. It does not allow relicensing. While not directly relevent to the current debate, this is an important distinction, and it grates on my ear to hear people talking about relicensing the code.
That's pretty much accurate.
This is not exactly correct - although I see where you get it. The GPL requires that if you use the code, you must allow anyone you distribute to to have the same freedoms you were given.
As to the slavery analogy, I think it's quite accurate. Some folk argue that if you can't sell yourself into slavery, you're not really free. This makes a very close analogy to the argument that says that if you can't close the code, it's not really free.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.