Good reasons for chosing GPL over BSD
on
Tracking GPL Violators
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I've written many free software tools over the years. I've licensed these using the GPL, BSD licenses, and finally switched a couple of years ago to GPL for everything.
Why? There are several reasons:
1. I relicense the same source code commercially. This means companies pay for commercial licenses which do not have any GPL-like requirements. This is of course my right since I'm the author. It provides some nice income. Not possible with BSD licenses.
2. Other free software developers are given a competitive advantage when they use my GPL'd code. Commercial developers can choose to pay if they want to escape the GPL license. When I used BSD licenses, I was actually giving a competitive advantage to those who reused my source code in commercial products.
The GPL is a weapon, of course, and no-one likes being at the receiving end. But for any developer who has spent years (decades, even) writing open source, it's an excellent and far-sighted choice.
There are some voices on Slashdot that claim that GPL violators are just like file sharers. (And that to treat them differently is hypocritical.)
Indeed, both discussions are about copyright. But they are also more fundamentally about fair use.
The GPL is based on the author's copyright and a very generous fair use license that promotes shared investment in the work. When a company takes GPL'd work and resells derived works without respecting the author's copyright, they are taking someone's work and reselling it without respecting the original author's rights.
Now to file sharing. Yes, this is also about copyright and fair use. However, it is rarely about restricting access to a work, it is about broadening that access.
The moral debate is simple: all technology, all creative work, all artistic creation and invention is the result of a continuous cultural stream that stretches back to the origins of our species. Every single creative act is a pebble placed on a mountain built by our ancestors.
Slashdotters tend to understand this intuitively. We don't like patents because they claim ownership of something we know to belong to us all. We don't like GPL violators because they take common property and resell it under false pretenses. We don't like DRM because it takes common property and fences it off. We tolerate file sharing and defend those who do it because we know that the alternative is cultural sterility, decay, and evetually extinction.
There is no contradiction here. Anyone who takes sacks of pebbles from the mountain and says "these are now mine" is a simple rogue, legalised or not, and we all know it.
Could you explain how the Mozilla Foundation currently gets its funding and what your vision is on the long-term funding for open source projects like Mozilla?
Most cheap MP3 players are built using standard chips that come with FM tuning and voice recording as standard. All you need is the firmware to activate the functionality.
AM would mean extra hardware (antenna and the rest) so is out of the question.
To get to the point where fans will scan random binaries for strings that give clues as to the features of upcoming products, write their speculations in blogs, and where these blogs then make the front page of the world's most popular news site for geeks...
I'm impressed.
Now if only I knew what CHUD, 970MP, or WWDC meant...
An IT student was sued by 17 movie companies including all the big names and their French distributors for downloading 488 movies over a period of years. He admitted watching them privately, with one or two friends, and sharing a few copies.
The first court, and the appeal court, rejected a claim by the prosecutor for EUR 5.000 in damages (and 10,000 Euro interests and costs) against the defendant, accepting the defense's argument that under European Union law, all surfers (internaughts!) already pay a tax on blank media, PCs and blank CDs that covers their use of these material as consumers.
The main point was that the student's use of the downloaded movies was personal - the small amount of sharing he did was not enough to classify it as "collective use". I assume that if he had shared the movies further, or shown them to a public audience, he would be liable for damages for those actions.
The charge of "piracy" was essentially thrown out.
Further this ruling would appear to affect all EU countries, though the French case will affect only French law initially - defendants in other countries will be able to refer to the same EU conventions.
(Note that the EU conventions are not law per-se, but all countries agree to implement them in national law, so it comes to the same thing.)
Lastly, this would appear to being EU into line with Canada as regards the legality of downloading media for personal use.
From the legal documents it looks like the plaintiff sued for libel, and the motion was suspended, but the plaintiff was granted the right to recover costs of around $7,500 (Canadian, one supposes).
Not at all clear how this affects free speach one way or another.
Surprisingly, the developers are a tiny part of the "cost" of commercial software, and there is no reason why open source developers cannot be very well paid, and no reason why excellent developers should be doing less challenging work. There is a huge market for the best people. I know - this is my business.
I said that technology moves towards a zero price point, not that people's labour does.
The price of labour is affected by a different equation, namely the elimination of barriers that previously stopped other people competing for the same jobs.
Any student of economics will understand that competition is a positive force. Seeing one's salary undercut by competition is tough, but it may be the incentive you need to rethink your job, your productivity, and your role in society.
I'm sure it's been tried often. Do you think you are the first person to think of this?
However, there are more than enough incompetent and even evil people working within the FOSS movement already. Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies here as it does anywhere. The fact that constructions such as Linux exist at all demonstrates the power of community efforts when it comes to detecting, measuring, and filtering the bullshit to leave the 10% that is worth downloading.
You might be able to do some damage by submitting clever patches that deliberately broke products, but you would be traced, blacklisted, and inevitably the process would continue to do its work.
This is why, for instance, excellent observations like this one get modded up on Slashdot, while poor ones generally do not. Community-moderated systems can work very well indeed.
There are several companies who make products that Linux threatens directly. Any firm selling, for instance, an operating system, would feel threatened by what is becoming the standard OS much as TCP/IP became the standard networking protocol.
But to call these "competitors" of Linux is to misunderstand the nature of the threat.
Linux is not a business, it is not a strategy, it is not a concept.
Linux represents the brutal and unflinching march of technology towards the zero price point. Linux - and all free & open-source software - exists because all the barriers to its existence have been gradually razed.
The first rule of competition is that all players must be playing the same game. How can anyone seriously still think that Linux and (e.g.) Microsoft are playing the same game?
The game is not over - there is no game, and there never was.
Why would anyone buy such a piece of equipment in preference over a good DLP projector?
A projector is light and can be easily moved. It gives you a huge display, with comparable resolution and brightness. It is cheaper. It can double up for business use, and can be carried in one hand. And when it's switched off, you get your living room back.
The only disadvantage of a projector is that it can be a little noisy - DLP chips get very hot and need a lot of cooling.
And perhaps there are no projectors with built-in TV decoding, which I don't care about personally since I don't have TV, and only watch DVDs.
It is possible to build immense and complex code bases that are incredibly well tested and robust. Look at any Linux distribution and this is what you have.
The key is that the code base is structured so that it can evolve over time as many independent layers and threads, each using an appropriate technology and competing in terms of quality and functionality.
The problem is not the overall size of the code base, it's the attempt to exert centralised control over it.
To take a parallel from another domain: we can see very large economies working pretty well. The economies that fail are invariably the ones which attempt to exert centralised planning and control.
The solution is to break the code base into independent, competing projects that have some common goal, guidelines, and possibly economic rationale, but for the rest are free to develop as they need to.
Not only does this make for better code, it is also cheaper.
But it's less profitable... and thus we come to the dilema of the 2000s: attempt to make large systems on the classical model (which tends towards failure) or accept that distributed cooperate development is the only scalable option (and then lose control over the profits).
So you are saying that I can take any existing US software patent - let's say, a patent on eliptic curve encryption - and rush to apply for a similar EU patent?
Does not make sense. This would create a huge opportunity for confusion.
I believe - but need to do more research to be entirely sure - that while the application date applies, the US patent application date would apply in Europe as well, under WIPO rules.
This means that while European software firms have been explicitly denied the right to get patents on their inventions, US firms have been aquiring rights that will be enforced in Europe. Prior art will help to some extent but only if (a) the prior art was published before the US patent application date, and (b) the European firm is willing to go to court to fight the case.
Apart from open source, there is not a tradition of publishing software prior art in Europe, which will hamper efforts to find it.
"Start patenting" is easier said than done. It costs a minimum of EUR10,000 a pop, which is a lot of money for a small group. And then all existing US software patents will take force with prior dates.
Lastly, patents are worthless without the means to back them up. A "large enough portfolio" mainly means you're willing to go to court to defend your claims.
If this directive is passed, European software researchers like my firm are basically put out of business. We cannot recover or protect our past investment, and our clients will not risk working with technology from small firms with no patent protection.
So if the reason for letting the directive pass now was simply "administrative" and not related to its actual content and meaning, this leaves space for it to be rejected later.
Being personally deeply affected by this directive - I own a software company that does a huge amount of R&D - I really hope the MEPs will do the right thing.
The IT industry is really splitting into two opposing camps. OTOH we have those who believe technology should be expensive and lucrative. OTOH we have those who believe technology is sliding down the commodity curve and that the future lies in services.
It's pretty clear which companies are on each side. With this statement, CA position themselves on the "sliders" side along with IBM, Novell, and the free/open source community.
My point was: there is no opting out except by the extreme means of disconnecting yourself from the online world.
The "Internet" is not just your PC and the web, it includes all banks, all information processing institutions, and this lorry-full of magtapes.
The vanishing cost of storage combined with the universal constant of human incompetence is what caused this "fault".
I.e. asking banks and credit agencies to tighten their act is not going to help. They are and always have been structurally incompetent. It's just that now, it affects terrabytes, not megabytes, of data at once.
It's not just the scammers and phishers and 419 letters. The basic infrastructure for most people is their precious box, and that is falling apart.
Look: if one of my PCs gets a problem, I start to get sympathetic symptoms. If my notebook crashes, I get really ill too. When it's fixed, I feel much better.
I run Linux, we all do in this company, but people who run Windows are contaminated from something akin to a epidemic of the plague.
It's not surprising they are reluctant to trust much else.
Seriously, Dvorak has turned into a troll! Like, I mean, WTF? "Windows will run Linux as its secret sex slave and cut off all its oxygen. SCO was the trial run for that..."
Q: So what's this between yourselves and Microsoft? Is it personal?
A: No, it's nothing personal. We're going to grind their cheating, robbing, lazy farking faces in the dust of their spyware-ridden corporate collapse, while their users flee in hordes into our welcoming arms. The "Fire" in Firefox is about the righteous burning flames that will purify the world of IT and cleanse it from... sorry. Nothing personal.
Q: So is Firefox the new operating system?
A: STFU. Who invents these questions? Firefox is a web browser. The web is much huger than a single box, which is what operating systems manage. Firefox is the gateway to heavenly paradise, Slashdot, unsafe GIS, and fark.com. All without spyware. Hah!
Q: So when is Chandler going to be available?
A: Soon.
Q: What... does Chandler do, exactly?
A: Well, we're aiming to be the first open source project to hit the Vapourware of the Year charts.
Q: Mitch, thanks for your time. Anything you want to say to our readers?
A: Yes, 2005 is the year of The Fox. Spread the word. Kill Bill. Yee Hay!!!
I found the questions bizarre. WTF was the "good code" question doing there? Where did it come from? What was its point? Faster CPUs mean better code? Surely the opposite... "since PCs are so fast, there is no need to code like monks anymore".
Second, yes, Kapor's answer was good. I mean, what else can you say to such a question?!
Third, yes, my comment was definitely funny. It'd have been funnier if I wasn't so freaked by the inanity of the discussion. OMG, Firefox is so the new operating system!!! Like we haven't heard that about every application since Emacs?
Lastly, I had no problem with the interview except it told me nothing and felt... bizarre, like I said.
What I think is that the text was actually edited from a much longer discussion, with some too-clever person putting all the incisive comments into what was supposed to be a cool piece. What terrible editing!
An interview should be like a story. A start, a strong statement, some to and fro, and a neat ending.
"So good code is less work to maintain than bad code" is not it. And Firefox (which I love) is not the new black.
Q: how does it feel to spend 20 years being beaten^H^H^H^H competing with Microsoft?
A: Microsoft totally cheat. They don't play fair. OK, sometimes they can pull their socks up, like when they bought Spyglass and abandoned MSN version 1.
Q: Firefox is like... the new operating system?
A: Yes, and one day it may actually instal Flash support automatically. There's no end to what's possible?
Q: How's Chandler doing?
A: Who?
Q: You know, the open source thingy.
A: Ah, yes, very well. That's such a kind thing to ask. Any day now. There's no beating open source.
Q: so, since CPU's have passed 3Ghz, does it make sense to write better code?
A: better code is better code.
Sigh.
I love Firefox open source as much as the next righteous Slashdotter, and Kapor is a totally cool dude, but WTF? WTFF?
Slashdot Mirror
I've written many free software tools over the years. I've licensed these using the GPL, BSD licenses, and finally switched a couple of years ago to GPL for everything.
Why? There are several reasons:
1. I relicense the same source code commercially. This means companies pay for commercial licenses which do not have any GPL-like requirements. This is of course my right since I'm the author. It provides some nice income. Not possible with BSD licenses.
2. Other free software developers are given a competitive advantage when they use my GPL'd code. Commercial developers can choose to pay if they want to escape the GPL license. When I used BSD licenses, I was actually giving a competitive advantage to those who reused my source code in commercial products.
The GPL is a weapon, of course, and no-one likes being at the receiving end. But for any developer who has spent years (decades, even) writing open source, it's an excellent and far-sighted choice.
There are some voices on Slashdot that claim that GPL violators are just like file sharers. (And that to treat them differently is hypocritical.)
Indeed, both discussions are about copyright. But they are also more fundamentally about fair use.
The GPL is based on the author's copyright and a very generous fair use license that promotes shared investment in the work. When a company takes GPL'd work and resells derived works without respecting the author's copyright, they are taking someone's work and reselling it without respecting the original author's rights.
Now to file sharing. Yes, this is also about copyright and fair use. However, it is rarely about restricting access to a work, it is about broadening that access.
The moral debate is simple: all technology, all creative work, all artistic creation and invention is the result of a continuous cultural stream that stretches back to the origins of our species. Every single creative act is a pebble placed on a mountain built by our ancestors.
Slashdotters tend to understand this intuitively. We don't like patents because they claim ownership of something we know to belong to us all. We don't like GPL violators because they take common property and resell it under false pretenses. We don't like DRM because it takes common property and fences it off. We tolerate file sharing and defend those who do it because we know that the alternative is cultural sterility, decay, and evetually extinction.
There is no contradiction here. Anyone who takes sacks of pebbles from the mountain and says "these are now mine" is a simple rogue, legalised or not, and we all know it.
Could you explain how the Mozilla Foundation currently gets its funding and what your vision is on the long-term funding for open source projects like Mozilla?
Most cheap MP3 players are built using standard chips that come with FM tuning and voice recording as standard. All you need is the firmware to activate the functionality.
AM would mean extra hardware (antenna and the rest) so is out of the question.
I'm impressed.
To get to the point where fans will scan random binaries for strings that give clues as to the features of upcoming products, write their speculations in blogs, and where these blogs then make the front page of the world's most popular news site for geeks...
I'm impressed.
Now if only I knew what CHUD, 970MP, or WWDC meant...
Look at Apple's stock price over 5 years, for instance - it's higher now than it was at its peak in 2000.
Very brief:
An IT student was sued by 17 movie companies including all the big names and their French distributors for downloading 488 movies over a period of years. He admitted watching them privately, with one or two friends, and sharing a few copies.
The first court, and the appeal court, rejected a claim by the prosecutor for EUR 5.000 in damages (and 10,000 Euro interests and costs) against the defendant, accepting the defense's argument that under European Union law, all surfers (internaughts!) already pay a tax on blank media, PCs and blank CDs that covers their use of these material as consumers.
The main point was that the student's use of the downloaded movies was personal - the small amount of sharing he did was not enough to classify it as "collective use". I assume that if he had shared the movies further, or shown them to a public audience, he would be liable for damages for those actions.
The charge of "piracy" was essentially thrown out.
Further this ruling would appear to affect all EU countries, though the French case will affect only French law initially - defendants in other countries will be able to refer to the same EU conventions.
(Note that the EU conventions are not law per-se, but all countries agree to implement them in national law, so it comes to the same thing.)
Lastly, this would appear to being EU into line with Canada as regards the legality of downloading media for personal use.
From the legal documents it looks like the plaintiff sued for libel, and the motion was suspended, but the plaintiff was granted the right to recover costs of around $7,500 (Canadian, one supposes).
Not at all clear how this affects free speach one way or another.
Surprisingly, the developers are a tiny part of the "cost" of commercial software, and there is no reason why open source developers cannot be very well paid, and no reason why excellent developers should be doing less challenging work. There is a huge market for the best people. I know - this is my business.
I said that technology moves towards a zero price point, not that people's labour does.
The price of labour is affected by a different equation, namely the elimination of barriers that previously stopped other people competing for the same jobs.
Any student of economics will understand that competition is a positive force. Seeing one's salary undercut by competition is tough, but it may be the incentive you need to rethink your job, your productivity, and your role in society.
I'm sure it's been tried often. Do you think you are the first person to think of this?
However, there are more than enough incompetent and even evil people working within the FOSS movement already. Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap") applies here as it does anywhere. The fact that constructions such as Linux exist at all demonstrates the power of community efforts when it comes to detecting, measuring, and filtering the bullshit to leave the 10% that is worth downloading.
You might be able to do some damage by submitting clever patches that deliberately broke products, but you would be traced, blacklisted, and inevitably the process would continue to do its work.
This is why, for instance, excellent observations like this one get modded up on Slashdot, while poor ones generally do not. Community-moderated systems can work very well indeed.
There are several companies who make products that Linux threatens directly. Any firm selling, for instance, an operating system, would feel threatened by what is becoming the standard OS much as TCP/IP became the standard networking protocol.
But to call these "competitors" of Linux is to misunderstand the nature of the threat.
Linux is not a business, it is not a strategy, it is not a concept.
Linux represents the brutal and unflinching march of technology towards the zero price point. Linux - and all free & open-source software - exists because all the barriers to its existence have been gradually razed.
The first rule of competition is that all players must be playing the same game. How can anyone seriously still think that Linux and (e.g.) Microsoft are playing the same game?
The game is not over - there is no game, and there never was.
Why would anyone buy such a piece of equipment in preference over a good DLP projector?
A projector is light and can be easily moved. It gives you a huge display, with comparable resolution and brightness. It is cheaper. It can double up for business use, and can be carried in one hand. And when it's switched off, you get your living room back.
The only disadvantage of a projector is that it can be a little noisy - DLP chips get very hot and need a lot of cooling.
And perhaps there are no projectors with built-in TV decoding, which I don't care about personally since I don't have TV, and only watch DVDs.
It is possible to build immense and complex code bases that are incredibly well tested and robust. Look at any Linux distribution and this is what you have.
The key is that the code base is structured so that it can evolve over time as many independent layers and threads, each using an appropriate technology and competing in terms of quality and functionality.
The problem is not the overall size of the code base, it's the attempt to exert centralised control over it.
To take a parallel from another domain: we can see very large economies working pretty well. The economies that fail are invariably the ones which attempt to exert centralised planning and control.
The solution is to break the code base into independent, competing projects that have some common goal, guidelines, and possibly economic rationale, but for the rest are free to develop as they need to.
Not only does this make for better code, it is also cheaper.
But it's less profitable... and thus we come to the dilema of the 2000s: attempt to make large systems on the classical model (which tends towards failure) or accept that distributed cooperate development is the only scalable option (and then lose control over the profits).
So you are saying that I can take any existing US software patent - let's say, a patent on eliptic curve encryption - and rush to apply for a similar EU patent?
Does not make sense. This would create a huge opportunity for confusion.
I believe - but need to do more research to be entirely sure - that while the application date applies, the US patent application date would apply in Europe as well, under WIPO rules.
This means that while European software firms have been explicitly denied the right to get patents on their inventions, US firms have been aquiring rights that will be enforced in Europe. Prior art will help to some extent but only if (a) the prior art was published before the US patent application date, and (b) the European firm is willing to go to court to fight the case.
Apart from open source, there is not a tradition of publishing software prior art in Europe, which will hamper efforts to find it.
"Start patenting" is easier said than done. It costs a minimum of EUR10,000 a pop, which is a lot of money for a small group. And then all existing US software patents will take force with prior dates.
Lastly, patents are worthless without the means to back them up. A "large enough portfolio" mainly means you're willing to go to court to defend your claims.
If this directive is passed, European software researchers like my firm are basically put out of business. We cannot recover or protect our past investment, and our clients will not risk working with technology from small firms with no patent protection.
So if the reason for letting the directive pass now was simply "administrative" and not related to its actual content and meaning, this leaves space for it to be rejected later.
Being personally deeply affected by this directive - I own a software company that does a huge amount of R&D - I really hope the MEPs will do the right thing.
The IT industry is really splitting into two opposing camps. OTOH we have those who believe technology should be expensive and lucrative. OTOH we have those who believe technology is sliding down the commodity curve and that the future lies in services.
It's pretty clear which companies are on each side. With this statement, CA position themselves on the "sliders" side along with IBM, Novell, and the free/open source community.
My point was: there is no opting out except by the extreme means of disconnecting yourself from the online world.
The "Internet" is not just your PC and the web, it includes all banks, all information processing institutions, and this lorry-full of magtapes.
The vanishing cost of storage combined with the universal constant of human incompetence is what caused this "fault".
I.e. asking banks and credit agencies to tighten their act is not going to help. They are and always have been structurally incompetent. It's just that now, it affects terrabytes, not megabytes, of data at once.
When businesses started collecting huge amounts of detailed via through the web in the mid 1990's, it was clear where we were heading:
1. unlimited storage capacity meant complex and detailed records could be kept on every person.
2. guaranteed incompetence meant these records would be abused, lost, exposed and manipulated.
I don't see either of these trends changing.
Applies to both commercial and governmental databases. Chaos, mess, confusion, abuse, on a huge and ever-increasing scale.
Welcome to the 21st century. You can opt out by unchecking the "Connect to the Internet" box about 10 years ago...
It's not just the scammers and phishers and 419 letters. The basic infrastructure for most people is their precious box, and that is falling apart.
Look: if one of my PCs gets a problem, I start to get sympathetic symptoms. If my notebook crashes, I get really ill too. When it's fixed, I feel much better.
I run Linux, we all do in this company, but people who run Windows are contaminated from something akin to a epidemic of the plague.
It's not surprising they are reluctant to trust much else.
It's a troll!
Seriously, Dvorak has turned into a troll! Like, I mean, WTF? "Windows will run Linux as its secret sex slave and cut off all its oxygen. SCO was the trial run for that..."
Dvorak just made my permanent black list.
This is the interview we should have seen...
Q: So what's this between yourselves and Microsoft? Is it personal?
A: No, it's nothing personal. We're going to grind their cheating, robbing, lazy farking faces in the dust of their spyware-ridden corporate collapse, while their users flee in hordes into our welcoming arms. The "Fire" in Firefox is about the righteous burning flames that will purify the world of IT and cleanse it from... sorry. Nothing personal.
Q: So is Firefox the new operating system?
A: STFU. Who invents these questions? Firefox is a web browser. The web is much huger than a single box, which is what operating systems manage. Firefox is the gateway to heavenly paradise, Slashdot, unsafe GIS, and fark.com. All without spyware. Hah!
Q: So when is Chandler going to be available?
A: Soon.
Q: What... does Chandler do, exactly?
A: Well, we're aiming to be the first open source project to hit the Vapourware of the Year charts.
Q: Mitch, thanks for your time. Anything you want to say to our readers?
A: Yes, 2005 is the year of The Fox. Spread the word. Kill Bill. Yee Hay!!!
Always happy to explain,
I found the questions bizarre. WTF was the "good code" question doing there? Where did it come from? What was its point? Faster CPUs mean better code? Surely the opposite... "since PCs are so fast, there is no need to code like monks anymore".
Second, yes, Kapor's answer was good. I mean, what else can you say to such a question?!
Third, yes, my comment was definitely funny. It'd have been funnier if I wasn't so freaked by the inanity of the discussion. OMG, Firefox is so the new operating system!!! Like we haven't heard that about every application since Emacs?
Lastly, I had no problem with the interview except it told me nothing and felt... bizarre, like I said.
What I think is that the text was actually edited from a much longer discussion, with some too-clever person putting all the incisive comments into what was supposed to be a cool piece. What terrible editing!
An interview should be like a story. A start, a strong statement, some to and fro, and a neat ending.
"So good code is less work to maintain than bad code" is not it. And Firefox (which I love) is not the new black.
Q: how does it feel to spend 20 years being beaten^H^H^H^H competing with Microsoft?
A: Microsoft totally cheat. They don't play fair. OK, sometimes they can pull their socks up, like when they bought Spyglass and abandoned MSN version 1.
Q: Firefox is like... the new operating system?
A: Yes, and one day it may actually instal Flash support automatically. There's no end to what's possible?
Q: How's Chandler doing?
A: Who?
Q: You know, the open source thingy.
A: Ah, yes, very well. That's such a kind thing to ask. Any day now. There's no beating open source.
Q: so, since CPU's have passed 3Ghz, does it make sense to write better code?
A: better code is better code.
Sigh.
I love Firefox open source as much as the next righteous Slashdotter, and Kapor is a totally cool dude, but WTF? WTFF?
My company's product (sms@) is described here.
The patent in question is held by a firm (or individual trading as) Minfo.