Author Topic: GPL issues with ML post processing software  (Read 73893 times)

nikfreak

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #125 on: September 17, 2014, 10:22:10 AM »
...

FYI, ML development is stopped because of this issue.

I suggest at a first action to delete questionable threads and also ban users which won't agre to comply with ML/GPL rules. I still can't seem to understand why ths didn't happen. On one side there are issues but on the other side there's nothing done by forum admins/mods. It just looks like ML team support such behaviour. I mean the RAWmagic thread is still available and what are we hoping to achieve? That from time to time Mr Thomas Worth will appear here to answer some comments? It's like ping pong. We say he didn't follow GPL, he says no this isn't the case now...

And because of that development is stopped. This is sad.
70D.112 & 100D.101

Audionut

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3584
  • Blunt and to the point
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #126 on: September 17, 2014, 11:24:10 AM »
On one side there are issues but on the other side there's nothing done by forum admins/mods. It just looks like ML team support such behaviour.

That is not the case.  We are working on an announcement, but since like most things, time is an issue for all parties involved, the process isn't a 5 minute fix.   ; ;)

vertigopix

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
  • EOS M - 60D - 6D
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #127 on: September 17, 2014, 11:31:52 AM »
Quote
We are working on an announcement

I hope that will be a good news...

PaulB

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #128 on: September 17, 2014, 03:03:07 PM »
I appreciate the issues involved and sympathise wholeheartedly with the ML devs, but I'm thinking genies and bottles, here. Once the code is public, unscrupulous types are going to nick bits of it if it suits them. Hard to think of a solution to that one...

swinxx

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #129 on: September 17, 2014, 03:15:57 PM »
Are there more third party tool involved? I thought all the discussion started because of rawmagic..?


@a1ex:
The Magic Lantern project is amazing
Your passion and efford was/is second to none. 
You should not stop the development because of 1 black sheep.
I know that it is a different story but i know, that if you would accept paypal donations your work would be honored by so many decent fellowers!
Delete the threads from rawmagic, ban him, stop struggling, make a complaint at the applestore and basta.
It look like this guy is not interested in solving the problem.

Think about the others alex. The good ones!

Thomas Worth

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #130 on: September 17, 2014, 04:50:38 PM »
I've read enough libelous posts here that it's about time someone responded with facts instead of hearsay.

RAWMagic is currently in full GPL compliance. I asked, begged, pleaded with you to release the vertical stripes correction code as LGPL because I wanted to link directly to the code from RAWMagic for performance reasons, but you refused. I therefore had to implement the VS code as a separate binary, which hurts performance but is at least GPL-compliant.

It is a simple matter to read the RAWMagic release notes or inspect the software on a Mac to know this. So, I really don't know what Alex is talking about when he says "ML development is stopped because of this issue." Since RAWMagic is GPL-compliant, I fail to see how this is an issue at all.

Sadly, as a response to my good faith gesture I've been called a thief, ignorant, a liar, greedy, a black sheep and other mean-spirited things. You've also discussed petitioning Apple to remove RAWMagic from the App Store. Come on, guys. How in the world would you justify a nasty, vindictive move like that that to your users?

All I tried to do with RAWMagic was give the community a tool many of its users were asking for. Nobody else seemed interested in meeting these users' needs. Yes, I charge what I think is a fair price for my time. I even asked the forum before adding MLV support if people would be willing to pay for such an app, and the response was YES. So it is your own community that requested a paid piece of software!

Go ahead an delete the RAWMagic thread if you think that's good for the ML community. If you want to ban me, well, I guess that's OK too. I probably won't post here anymore anyway because of the really, really negative energy. :( You indeed do good work, but the negativity and name-calling is really not something I want RAWMagic users exposed to.

peoplemerge

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #131 on: September 17, 2014, 05:54:57 PM »
Also see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10952689/code-ported-from-one-to-another-language-licensing

I wouldn't even think of it!

So you are going to take for example my postprocessing algorithms (vertical stripes, chroma smoothing, bad pixel fix, dual iso, whatever) and rewrite them in some other language, under a more permissive license, enabling commercial developers to use them without giving anything back.
Will you design those algorithms from scratch? I highly doubt.

Wait.  What?  I thought MLRaw was an open standard, and according to this thread, commercial entities have already done this.  How did they solve these issues?

Isn't one reason you provide a reference implementation is to enable people to create their own implementations?  Yes you don't want people to rip off your work and I get that.

What would you want or not want me to do with regard to these algorithms?  It sounds like you don't want them copied and I respect your wishes.  That seems to mean you want me to write new algorithms.  Anything I come up with I'm happy to contribute back to the reference implementation.

Will I create more algorithms for ML? Why would I do that? To fill the pockets of some third parties?

It's got nothing to do with filling pockets.  I don't believe for a second that Thomas Worth has or will ever have more than a handful of users (no offense).  A million ML downloads?  How many of them unique visitors that are raw video shooters on mac?  If anyone really thinks that they're a big enough user base, someone would have cared enough to provide them satisfactory tools like they have on Windows or Linux.  It's not like they haven't been vocal.  But it's such a small niche I really don't understand the fuss... and I concede the point that even a single 1-penny download is immoral IF it violates agreements.  However people in this community have been very dismissive indeed of their needs, dismissive of Thomas Worth's contribution in providing a UI -- if UIs were trivial, Javascript would not be as hot as it is right now in the job market, and there would be no value in RawMagic.

But forget RawMagic.  My main goal (other than my own selfish desire to write it in a scalable language) is more for the poor guy working at a post processing firm that needs to suddenly deal with ML.  Or a larger entity like Adobe that may want to adopt ML but cannot because of GPL.  Neither of them want to make a small fortune out of ML, it's to support their business processes that currently work fine by not supporting ML.  It wouldn't surprise me to learn Thomas's most active user is himself.

=> you will be sabotaging the ML project, as others have already pointed out.
FYI, ML development is stopped because of this issue.

FYI alternative library development has not started yet.  a1ex, I am asking you, g3ggl, and the community for guidance from you on a potential solution to GPL issues in the context of RawMagic.  I already asked you guys to bury the hatchet with the man but now people are getting dug into their extreme positions and not offering up solutions.  What extreme positions?  Threats to complain to the apple store, threats to remove access to the forum, measures taken.  That's not nice.

I'm sorry to have upset you.  We code because we love it not because we are paid to do it, even if some of us are paid to do it.  I've been coding since I was 4 and I'll be coding 'till the day I die.  If I had to work in another field because there was no money writing code, I would still do it at night.  So make a decision on how you want to proceed and let's get back to doing what we love.

nikfreak

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1149
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #132 on: September 17, 2014, 08:15:48 PM »
...
a1ex, I am asking you, g3ggl, and the community for guidance from you on a potential solution to GPL issues in the context of RawMagic.  I already asked you guys to bury the hatchet with the man but now people are getting dug into their extreme positions and not offering up solutions.  What extreme positions?  Threats to complain to the apple store, threats to remove access to the forum, measures taken.  That's not nice.
...

Hmm ofc best solution would be if a1ex and Thomas Worth would find a way to clear things up and solve all issues outside the forum. Dunno but we need to find a way so a1ex may agree to pick up  development again.
70D.112 & 100D.101

g3gg0

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3154
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #133 on: September 17, 2014, 09:02:22 PM »
RAWMagic is currently in full GPL compliance.

we all know that and we dont question that. its not the point.

i love over-specific disclaimers: as you say, it is currently fully GPL compliant.
the older builds were violating GPL, as you admitted in this thread *after* alex
asked you about how you solved vertical stripe corr if not by using GPL code.
after alex asked you to at least support ML and gave you numerous things you could help with,
we just got told how rude we are to not LGPL such simple code and this is making ML raw unacceptable etc..

dont play the poor choirboy now.
alex asked you a few times to at least support ML in some other way after you violated the GPL.
you silently ignored him and never positioned yourself.

and this is the point we are all so upset about.
Help us with datasheets - Help us with register dumps
magic lantern: 1Magic9991E1eWbGvrsx186GovYCXFbppY, server expenses: paypal@g3gg0.de
ONLY donate for things we have done, not for things you expect!

N/A

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Dreaming in 14 bit
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #134 on: September 19, 2014, 01:31:37 PM »
Looking at this topic as somewhat of an outsider since I don't code, I definitely feel the frustration the developers have with someone profiting from their hard work. Canon is an incredibly large company, and with the success of Magic Lantern, we need to be prepared for innumerable amounts of third parties developing support for the ML formats and post-production processes. This is a terrific opportunity to bring ML to the next stage, which imho should be support from mainstream companies and independent developers as we continue to constantly improve this amazing tool we've been blessed with.

I'm not entirely familiar with the stipulations of GPL, open source, creative commons, etc, but I'm all too familiar with having my hard work, ideas and time taken from me without permission, compensation or even a damn "Thank you", so in the future, I propose a mission statement and set of principles for the ML project, as to clarify to third parties what our intentions are and the type of respect and acknowledgement we expect from others.

Thoughts?
7D. 600D. Rokinon 35 cine. Sigma 30 1.4
Audio and video recording/production, Random Photography
Want to help with the latest development but don't know how to compile?

LRF

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #135 on: September 19, 2014, 02:02:13 PM »
a mission statement and set of principles for the ML project, as to clarify to third parties what our intentions are and the type of respect and acknowledgement we expect from others.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13335.0


"Our intention:
To drive forward the Magic Lantern project through open sourced development.  Be that through development of the core code, modules, post processing applications, or any other applications designed to work primarily with the Magic Lantern project.

The only things we ask in return:

    Contribute back to the Magic Lantern project if you make improvements to it.
    Honor our decision that this code is free, and help to establish and support the free nature of Magic Lantern.
    If you use the code, or parts of it and distribute it (or even sell it), you must release this code (per the GPL).
    Don't act against common sense.

What does this mean for developers:
We prefer open sourced development, whether through the use of the code base already available from this project, or entirely on your own.
And of course we tolerate any closed source application as long it doesn't violate GPL terms, even if it is commercial.
But we will definitely take actions against commercial closed source tools that use GPLed code without asking the affected devs before to get an exclusive license.

Compressed view of categories:
a) open source, using our code [preferred]
b) open source, not using our code [preferred]
c) closed source, not using our code [tolerated]
d) closed source, commercial, not using our code [tolerated]
e) closed source, using our code [asked to publish source, ban likely]
f) closed source, commercial, using our code [banned]

What does this mean for end users:
From now on, we discourage everyone from using those applications that have their threads closed.
Using, testing and providing your bug reports for the remaining applications, helps drive forward the Magic Lantern project.
To clarify, only two tools fall into categories e) and f) and will face actions against them, both of them are kind of "better wrappers GUIs".
The professional tools are not affected at all, they know how to behave."

N/A

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
  • Dreaming in 14 bit
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #136 on: September 20, 2014, 12:33:23 AM »
Ohhhhh I missed that thread, thanks!

7D. 600D. Rokinon 35 cine. Sigma 30 1.4
Audio and video recording/production, Random Photography
Want to help with the latest development but don't know how to compile?

dyfid

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #137 on: September 20, 2014, 11:32:23 AM »
I think the Mission Statement and Principles should have two (maybe three) additional entries:

1. ML Developers should refrain from involvement on threads for any applications until it is ascertained if GPL code is used or not and that in the case of yes it is, the necessary actions take place.

This to me is the issue with arguments about RawMagic and particularly ill feeling about previous releases code infringement. It appears a few expressing their ill feeling and arguing points of historic actions, banning and retribution don't appreciate that RawMagic was introduced to ML forums over twelve months ago and ML developer involvement in that thread started at post #17, first page:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130630095753/http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.0

ML developer involvement at any level will be seen as encouragement by the application developer and signal acceptance for users to purchase. ML Developer involvement in that RawMagic thread, promoted RawMagic development and promoted sales, luckily it's mac only so....." :-)

The thread was even made a Sticky by forum mods. Then locked, a good move because the History is there to see for users to make up their own minds, then deleted, a pathetic action  which makes users and future users minds up for them.

The lesson has been learnt, you either ACT AT THE TIME and advise the developer, discuss possible GPL infringement, ask for code etc or forever struggle, bitch, harbour ill feeling and gain nothing but learning a lesson, put it down to inexperience and move on. Any move in legal terms would be undermined by the fact ML developers didn't act when they could have and ML developer involvement took place in that thread which will be seen as encouragement. You can thank Thomas for a couple of things, the kick up the ass to tighten up ;-) and the inception of the Mission Statement.

2. Discouraging non cross platform code for open source apps, you know the ones, "I made this app", (even though I ignored perfectly good ones already out there), "it's for" (insert OS of choice) "and just needs this" (insert bullshit runtime environment) "to work".

3. NO JAVA! :-)

5DanielMIII

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 47
  • -I love JESUS and MagicLantern-
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #138 on: September 20, 2014, 01:06:24 PM »

All I tried to do with RAWMagic was give the community a tool many of its users were asking for. Nobody else seemed interested in meeting these users' needs.
 

So it is your own community that requested a paid piece of software!
 

the negativity and name-calling is really not something I want RAWMagic users exposed to.

Stop it, STOP it STOP IT!!!
So many words, so many reasons and so many seasons! ( a little poem for you all right there, 100% free and without a license)
The following lines may not always be formulated in a very serious manner, but the content is.

Anyways, @Thomas Worth you really should stop hiding behind other people like you are some kind of software-robot, without the ability to control yourself and your actions.


You kind of keep saying that :

"I had to do something because nobody else made a move towards making a program for MLV/RAW files,  the world forced me into this..those evil magic lantern users..so many people overwhelmed me with a MLV/RAW program request, I never had any options..I can not choose for my self..I am just a human that obey greedy little ML users that knows better than me, they have money, so ..right?
Blame them, not me, I am a robot doing all the things I get told!!!
Com on devĀ“s, look at your children (I am referring to a lot of Magic Lantern users acting as children sometimes, including my self;-) We can not NOT obey them, they may became sad and wimp."

Ok, so if I have crossed the line, been to silly, or if I have misunderstood all the discussions going on, feel free to tell me and I will apologize.
We all make choices in life as sexy humans , and it is frustrating talking to someone who thinks others should be responsible for all the stuff we do.
I can always choose not to do something! (my Norwegian superpower)

Thanks for ML and all the work/projects/clients and adventures it has given me!
It has been so much fun, and still is :)


yeah, just felt like writing this today
I am thankful that Jesus and MagicLantern exist, because they both change lives!

lintoni

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #139 on: September 20, 2014, 01:32:15 PM »

2. Discouraging non cross platform code for open source apps, you know the ones, "I made this app", (even though I ignored perfectly good ones already out there), "it's for" (insert OS of choice) "and just needs this" (insert bullshit runtime environment) "to work".

Somebody may have a bright idea for a useful app and have the knowledge to implement it on one platform.  If it's good enough, then the idea will be picked up and ported to other platforms.  If not, it will fall by the wayside.  There's no need to unnecessarily stifle creativity.

Audionut

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3584
  • Blunt and to the point
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #140 on: September 20, 2014, 01:33:39 PM »
@dyfid

The thread hasn't been deleted.

dyfid

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #141 on: September 20, 2014, 01:46:03 PM »
@dyfid

The thread hasn't been deleted.

My apologies, I was sure it was stickied, couldn't see it, thought the worst.

Somebody may have a bright idea for a useful app and have the knowledge to implement it on one platform.  If it's good enough, then the idea will be picked up and ported to other platforms.  If not, it will fall by the wayside.  There's no need to unnecessarily stifle creativity.

It's not that hard to write for cross platform, especially a small targeted app for a certain task. Unless there's some specific specialised support required in the OS. Nothing to do with stifling creativity.

a1ex

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12357
  • Quarantined
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #142 on: September 20, 2014, 01:47:19 PM »
@dyfid:

The first post from a ML developer in the RawMagic thread was asking for the source code: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg46925#msg46925

I've repeated the request right after Thomas asked the users what they think about a paid app (before he released the paid version): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=6218.msg109216;topicseen#msg109216

Should I have bumped that message a little more often?

dyfid

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #143 on: September 20, 2014, 02:28:49 PM »
So scraxx was the first developer to respond on the thread:

Quote
Good job, can you share sources?

That could be interpreted in many ways. Including wishing to help in development, which would be first on users minds when reading scraxx request, not that scraxx wanted to check for GPL'd code.

What should have happened was establishing GPL compliance, direct question and advising why there was a request for code, if that was the meaning of scraxx's request. Who knows and that's the point no solid response.

Followed by:
Quote
Is it downloadable somewhere? Am I missing something?

Again, open to interpretation. No direct question regarding GPL or advise on GPL infringement.

At this point Thomas hadn't released the app, that came a few posts later, so scraxx request for a download was / would have been assumed by users on that thread, for the app, not the code.

Then Thomas asks:
Quote
Thanks. I'll have a look at the updated source. Can someone tell me what exactly the problem was?

And ML Developer help comes his way #17:
Quote
Here (see comments):

https://bitbucket.org/hudson/magic-lantern/src/tip/modules/lv_rec/raw2dng.c#cl-130

Pointing him to the very GPL code in contention, active developer involvement.

Thomas reply later that day:

Quote
Fixes coming today:

+ 5D Mk II footage now looks right
+ Vertical line problem should be solved (thanks Alex), requires more testing
+ Cancel button

If anyone is experiencing any other issues, let me know ASAP!

There it is. GPL code used in his application, on day one over twelve months ago and no discussion of GPL infringement. The question then is was Thomas aware he was infringing GPL, no one had made him aware of it in fact they help him use it!

So having ill feeling now for no historic code release is something to get over and move on.

This just reinforces the points I made earlier, active ML Developer involvement pushing Rawmagic development onwards without a mention of risks of GPL infringement or straight to the point ultimatum.

ML Developer encouragement continues: #37, same day.

Quote
If you find any situation where the vertical banding is not solved, just upload the first DNG from the video.

At the same time as weakly asking for sources with no reason or advice, active developer involvement with pointing to code and making encouraging remarks, undermines half baked request for code.

And on and on.

a1ex

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12357
  • Quarantined
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #144 on: September 20, 2014, 02:42:49 PM »
As g3gg0 explained earlier:

Quote
i was like "cmon, those are honorable guys. why so strict" but i guess i was wrong.

A request for sharing the sources, from a ML developer,  in the very first page of the thread, should have been sufficient in my opinion. And my repeating the request before going commercial was very clear.

Audionut

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3584
  • Blunt and to the point
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #145 on: September 20, 2014, 03:22:39 PM »
My apologies, I was sure it was stickied, couldn't see it, thought the worst.

Perhaps in the future, you will place more thought into your pathetic observational skills, before making such statements.

then deleted, a pathetic action  which makes users and future users minds up for them

 ;)



You're drawing at straws to justify the actions of a singular person (a developer, not a user), who at any time, if he was indeed misinterpreting the request for source code, could have asked a question, "why"!

Ignorance is bliss.

dyfid

  • Freshman
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #146 on: September 20, 2014, 05:19:56 PM »
Perhaps in the future, you will place more thought into your pathetic observational skills, before making such statements.

 ;)



ouch. :-[

Quote
You're drawing at straws to justify the actions of a singular person (a developer, not a user), who at any time, if he was indeed misinterpreting the request for source code, could have asked a question, "why"!

Ignorance is bliss.

I'm not making judgements, I'm not clutching at straws to try and make a point, its quite simple, I'm saying it's very rare that things are solely the blame of one party, very rarely are things black and white, right and wrong.

What I see here is that there was the chance to nip it in the bud, a robust non abusive, respectful assertion of the facts of GPL on that day in June last year and developers know now that they had the chance, but unfortunately due to inexperience in dealing with such things, as we all learn in life, missed the chance.

The problem with that is ill feeling grows because the individual knows the chance was missed, as a defence they blame the other party, in this case Thomas, like you suggest:

Quote
who at any time, if he was indeed misinterpreting the request for source code, could have asked a question, "why"!

Placing blame solely on Thomas would be naive, it was actions or inactions of all parties that contributed to the mess.

As g3gg0 explained earlier:

A request for sharing the sources, from a ML developer,  in the very first page of the thread, should have been sufficient in my opinion.

That's not really sufficient is it, would you stand up in a court of law in defence of the GPL and think that would have any weight behind it?

I think the lesson to learn is one either acts robustly at the time, make it clear where they take issue or forever try to turn back time blaming one party and trying to claw back some control of the situation. A life lesson that will happen to us all more than once.

Quote
Ignorance is bliss
Yes, and procession is 9/10ths the law and all those other platitudes, fact is if we let people get away with something without being robust at the time, we have nothing.

The answer is not to give them the chance to plead ignorance.

Quote
And my repeating the request before going commercial was very clear.

But where was the advice given regarding GPL infringement in the sequence of events? He's a commercial application developer , do they often provide source code?

I understand your point of view and I'm not wishing to make judgements on whats gone on, just feel some pragmatism is needed and acceptance to learn lessons and move on, not literally of coarse. :-)

Sc0Bee

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #147 on: September 20, 2014, 07:44:42 PM »
But where was the advice given regarding GPL infringement in the sequence of events? He's a commercial application developer , do they often provide source code?

What you should be asking is "How is it that a commercial application developer is unaware of the terms of the GPL?" and "Why would a commercial application developer need advice regarding GPL infringement?"

BTW, there's no requirement (in the US anyway) for the devs of ML to ask questions, advise, or to otherwise take preventative measures against infringement in order to have a valid legal claim against an infringer, as you seem to suggest.  Further, it's entirely appropriate for the devs to seek remedy once the infringement has been established.  IMO, Worth got off pretty lightly, given his initial evasiveness and subsequent whining about ML devs not releasing the code in question under LGPL.

Bottom line is that Worth, as a commercial developer, should have know better than to use GPL code in a commercial product without complying with the GPL terms.
Canon 500D, 7D | Lightroom 5 | Photoshop CS5 | Premiere Pro CS4 | After Effects CS4

1%

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5936
  • 600D/6D/50D/EOSM/7D
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #148 on: September 20, 2014, 08:09:50 PM »
Its funny because he could have released the source code freely and I bet 90% of his user base would not compile it. Just had to ask that nobody else post binaries.

g3gg0

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3154
Re: GPL issues with ML post processing software
« Reply #149 on: September 20, 2014, 08:58:08 PM »
some people seem mixing things up.
we are not starting a lawsuit against someone.

we are saying: "go away"
and to say this we wouldn't need any reason by the way - it is our domestic authority.
Help us with datasheets - Help us with register dumps
magic lantern: 1Magic9991E1eWbGvrsx186GovYCXFbppY, server expenses: paypal@g3gg0.de
ONLY donate for things we have done, not for things you expect!