Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-10 20:01:07

The existing file says this:

This work is not copyrighted.  I place it into the public domain.

Do whatever you want with it, absolutely no restrictions, and no permission 
necessary.


Jason Rohrer
Davis, California
March 2018

I'm thinking that the new file will say this:

This work is not copyrighted.  I place it into the public domain.

Do whatever you want with it, absolutely no restrictions, and no permission 
necessary, as far as copyright issues are concerned.


In areas outside the reach of copyright, I still retain other rights.  This
should go without saying, because this file is called "no_copyright".


Specifically:

1.  I retain my moral rights.  I am the original author of One Hour One Life,
    and you are not, so don't claim or imply that you are.  The version of
    One Hour One Life that I have created and released is the only version
    specifically authorized by me, the original author, and I wanted it to be
    just the way that it is.  Do not claim or imply that your versions or 
    alterations are authorized by me, or take actions that would confuse
    people about which version is the original.

2.  I retain my publicity rights, and my rights against defamation.
    Do not claim or imply that I endorse, approve, or am financially
    connected to whatever you're doing with my work.  Do no lie about
    me or my work, or mislead people about my work.

3.  I retain my trademark rights.  The name "One Hour One Life", my logos,
    banners, trailers, and screen shots, along with the specific graphical,
    auditory, and character elements in the official game, are my trademarks
    for the multiplayer online game service that I'm operating.  Do not operate
    your own separate multiplayer online game service using any of these
    marks, unless your service is explicitly limited to confirmed and verified
    customers of my service.

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-10 20:18:54

If the same text was applied to The Castle Doctrine, which was also a multiplayer online game service, Terminal Heist would not violate any of my rights:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta … t&hl=en_US

https://web.archive.org/web/20170313153 … heist.com/

And as for the obvious "What about Two Hours One Life," they just need to flip the switch on their server so that it only allows verified OHOL customers to join. It's a change to one line of code. My ticketServer is ready and available for them to use.

And what about One Hour One Life for Mobile? I technically licensed my trademark to them by email, so that's done, but I never relinquished (1) or (2) to them. But they seem to be moving in the direction of satisfying (3) over time anyway, as a way of settling with me over their (accidental) violation of (1) in China.

Whatever · 2019-03-10 20:24:57

jasonrohrer wrote:

3. I retain my trademark rights. The name "One Hour One Life", my logos,
banners, trailers, and screen shots, along with the specific graphical,
auditory, and character elements in the official game, are my trademarks
for the multiplayer online game service that I'm operating. Do not operate
your own separate multiplayer online game service using any of these
marks, unless your service is explicitly limited to confirmed and verified
customers of my service.

Does this mean other people are not allowed to host servers containing the same characters? skins? What does character elements mean?

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-10 20:29:09

As an example of using my "character elements" in a way that would violate my trademark (though a way that I permitted in this particular case), see this:

That character and that rabbit are my trademarks, and they should not be used in conjunction with other separate multiplayer online game services. (Except in this case, because I specifically allowed it.)

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-10 20:33:36

To further spell out (3), it means that mods that connect to my service are fine (like the zoom-out mod).

It means that mods that involve separate servers are also fine (like 2HOL), as long as those separate servers only allow players to connect who own access to my official servers.

What you do in private is your business, and outside the bounds of trademark.

CrazyEddie · 2019-03-10 20:40:53

I think that's a great improvement over the various statements you've made to date. It makes your intent clear and preserves any legal rights you may have other than the specific ones you want to disclaim.

As you've mentioned elsewhere, retaining your trademarks places a pretty large restriction on what people can do with the artwork which you intended to place in the public domain. But I think that restriction is precisely what you have been wanting, and perhaps what you were expecting you were owed even without depending on trademark law.

It's conceivable that you may have already lost your trademarks. You may have granted a license to those trademarks when you stated the following in an email to Dual Decade:

Jason wrote:
MobileDev wrote:
Understood. One last question just to avoid misunderstandings then: Are you fine with us using the name One Hour One Life or should we pick something else?
Essentially, everything I do, including names, is in the public domain and not copyrighted, trademarked, etc.
However, that doesn't give people the right to mislead people. Fraud and copyright are two different issues. If I were to take a public domain work (The Wizard of Oz), I could still release it under that title. If I modified it, I could no longer claim it was by Baum, but I could say it was based on Baum's work. If I presented it as my own work 100%, when it was not, I would again be committing fraud, though not violating copyright.
So, just be sure to make this clear. Same game, but an unofficial port, by you guys, but based on my work. You don't HAVE to say that it is based on my work, by the way (there is no attribution license in place here), but if you're claiming authorship yourselves, you'd better mention this so as not to commit fraud.

It's conceivable you granted the same license to those trademarks to everyone when you published that email in your original thread. And it's conceivable that that license, once granted, is irrevocable.

I say "conceivable" here because whether it is or isn't, including whether said grant was subject to conditions that Dual Decade broke, would ultimately have to be determined by a court hearing. In my completely amateur opinion I think Dual Decade would have a strong case that you granted them a license, a strong case that the license was irrevocable, and a strong case that they have not broken any conditions that may have been attached to that grant. I'm not particularly confident in that opinion because I know that trademark law has a number of important and complicated factors that I do not know enough about (it's important to know that there are things one doesn't know).

The good news is that Dual Decade is still, and has been all along, trying to live up to much more than just their legal obligations, but instead are trying to adhere to the "whatever makes Jason happy" license. You should be glad that they are.

It's good that you've spent some time to clarify your intent, your requirements, your rights, and your disclaimer of some of those specific rights. Kudos. I think it's well-written; it's concise and easy to understand.

(Edit: I see you do agree that you granted them a license. I'm glad to see that; I hadn't seen those posts when I first wrote this one.)

Last edited by CrazyEddie (2019-03-10 20:49:14)

BladeWoods · 2019-03-10 23:18:05

So if someone wanted to make their own separate multiplayer service like Dual Decade did, they still can, but they need a different name and can't use any of your art or audio?

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-10 23:47:19

Yes, Eddie, I clearly licensed my trademark to DualDecade in that email. Think of them as being grandfathered in. Aside from that one line in that one email, I can't recall ever mentioning trademark to anyone, nor have I ever given it much thought until this past week.

And yes, the restriction about "what can be done with the artwork" is very large, but only in the realm of running multiplayer online game services.

There is no restriction outside that realm, because I'm not engaged in trade outside that realm. So, for example, a comic book wouldn't undercut me, nor a platformer game, nor a YouTube video, nor a Netflix show, nor a paper doll kit, nor someone selling OHOL Halloween costumes, nor OHOL bath towels. Those things would normally be prevented by copyright, but not by trademark. I'm waiving my copyright, still.

And yes, BladeWoods, anyone free to make their own separate multiplayer service under a different name and with different artwork and audio. I suppose they could still use my client and server code to make this happen, but the result would not be commercially confusing (because people mostly recognize video games by their titles, graphics, and sound, not the underlying code). Still, they would have a "leg up" on me, because the client and server code was very hard to write. (Though DualDecade apparently didn't use any of the client code.)

My understanding is that I can't trademark "gameplay," so the only way to prevent code-identical clones would be through copyright on the code, and I don't want to do that.

CrazyEddie · 2019-03-11 00:00:11

So if someone wanted to make their own separate multiplayer service like Dual Decade did, they still can, but they need a different name and can't use any of your art or audio?

Jason has a trademark in anything which is being used to uniquely identify his product and its origin (origin here meaning "made by Jason" as opposed to "made by someone else"). Any use of any of those trademarks by someone else's product which would tend to confuse consumers as to the origin of that product - i.e. that might lead a consumer to think that the other person's product was actually Jason's product - would infringe on Jason's trademark rights.

(Technically, since Jason's product is a service, the marks are service marks rather than trademarks, but they basically work the same way.)

The art and audio are in the public domain and can be used by anyone for anything. But if they are used in a way that might lead to confusion as to the origin of a product, then that use might be infringing. So, for example, a competing multiplayer service could use all of Jason's art and audio in their game, but could not use it in advertising their game in the same or similar way that Jason uses it to advertise his game.

There's some interesting questions around all of this:

How specific would Jason's use of his artwork have to be in order to be protected as a trademark? If Jason's advertising and promotion of his game uses particular pieces of artwork, but doesn't use other particular pieces of artwork, could a competing game use those other pieces in their advertising and promotion of their game?
Does Jason's use of his artwork within the game constitute "trade dress", and if so, would the use of the same artwork (or even a similar art style!) in a competing game infringe on that trade dress? Maybe yes, if the game itself is considered part of its own appearance "in commerce". Maybe no, if the in-game appearance of the game is not presented to the public, for example, in its advertising and marketing and points-of-sale. Would it make a difference if the game were cast on youtube? Would it make a difference if those youtube casts were done by people with no connection to the game's producers?
If Jason's product is actually his service, and if his code and artwork are public domain, could someone sell a modified client using his trademarks? Or would the distinction between a piece of client software (a product) and the ability to connect a client to a server (a service) be sufficiently poorly-understood so as to nevertheless lead to confusion between the two in the minds of consumers?

Remember that the key factor in determining whether or not a trademark right exists is whether the mark is being used in commerce. Jason could assert a trademark right over every piece of art and audio, but if the other party can show that they are not being used in commerce to uniquely identify the product then Jason may not be able to prevail if it came to a lawsuit.

jere · 2019-03-11 00:00:57

A good direction. Thanks for this.

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-11 00:30:07

There's also an interesting question about whether free services count as activity "in commerce." Broadcast television channels can have trademarks (or service marks), for example, even though the end user does not pay for them. For the time being, at least as far as my "wishes" are concerned, I'm including free multiplayer game services in (3) above.

I would argue that the graphics inside the game itself do indeed constitute trade dress for the service, especially since on Steam, the 2-hour refund policy is exercised by users as a try-before-you-buy policy. This is equivalent to peeking inside a restaurant, seeing the distinctive and unique decor inside, and deciding not to eat there.

And yes, someone is free to sell (or give away) modified (or not) client software, but only if that client software could only connect to my service.

They could also sell their own identical (or modified) service, as long as they verified that their customers were already customers of my service. So, imagine a $2 version of 2HOL, but you had to have an OHOL account to play it, for a grand total of $22.

The mobile developers and I did actually discuss this option, but in the case of mobile, it was going to be too difficult tech-wise, so we dropped the idea (and also a hard-sell for mobile players... needing a $20 account).

GreatShawn · 2019-03-11 00:40:47

O...Kay?

Is this like a showoff of your vocab skills?

fragilityh14 · 2019-03-11 01:22:46

I've stopped following the ins and outs of this, but I fear, in requiring 2HOL to only allow people who have paid for access to your official servers to play, you've lost your way.

unless i'm misunderstanding, that's a non-commercial service and the game is explicitly free, with server access being the thing being sold.

I completely understand why you are frustrated with the situation, but I worry you're "throwing out the baby with the bathwater", so to speak.

personally, I love this game, $20 has been an amazing value, and I'm glad to support your incredible work, so none of this effects me in a meaningful way. But on a personal level, I suspect when you look back on all of this years from now, you will regret telling 2HOL to flip that switch, if only for moral and intellectual reasons.

just my opinion as a "friend" [wellwisher, more accurately, i suppose.] There's no reason you need to value my opinion, but as I have grown to admire you as a person, I would be remiss if i didn't express my thoughts.

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-11 04:45:31

Well, over the course of this discussion, lots of potential future "problems" have been raised, and there have been no good answers to any of them.

Many people have said, "use CC BY NC" or something like that. And several people pointed out that a completely free version of OHOL would still be possible with CC BY NC, and that it could be even MORE confusing than the mobile version. Furthermore, I realized that such a possibility would completely destroy my livelihood.

As it stood, if I have no trademark, and no copyright, there is absolutely nothing stopping someone from setting up a few servers and putting a free version of OHOL on Steam. "This is a completely free version of One Hour One Life, by Jason Rohrer. The servers are limited to 600 simultaneous players. Go to town." No "permissive license" of any kind would prevent this. Not GPL. Not CC BY, not CC BY NC, not CC BY NC SA, not MIT, not blah blah blah. Only true, full-blown copyright would, if I'm willing to wield it.

I've always thought, "Well, Valve would likely just not approve that game." They hand-approve everything, and are well-aware of OHOL, so I'm probably safe. But thinking such a thing, in the back of my mind, and depending on it for my livelihood---it's both a foolish and intellectually dishonest thing to be doing. It's kind of like a dirty secret. Yes, this is in the public domain, but I don't have to worry about direct competitor clones on Steam, at least...

I've talked about how the mobile version has likely helped me financially, because they are operating in a distinct market, and spreading the word about OHOL to the world. Unfortunately (for me, financially), it sounds like that is going to change, when they pick a different title, and start changing the look of their version of the game.

But it's pretty clear to me that 2HOL has hurt me financially. Not enormously, but a little bit, at least. And it could have been much worse. If it had taken off huge back in.... May 2018 or so, there's a good chance that I wouldn't even be here talking to you and making updates. I would have been forced to give up and start working on a new game by now.

For whatever reason, 2HOL didn't take off in a huge way. Not sure why, exactly. Maybe it was accessibility. Why didn't 2HOL move onto Steam? Probably just out of goodwill, and concern for my livelihood. Concern for me is nice, I'm lucky there. But it was just luck. I can't really keep depending on luck, or Steam's confusion about IP law, for my livelihood. I do have a wife and three children to support, and this is my only source of income.

In other words, 2HOL is pretty much operating directly in my market, and severely undercutting me.

There may be a reason that no successful game in history has ever allowed such a thing to occur.

Wielding full-blown copyright would stop such things, but would also be overkill, and overly burdensome. Since no existing permissive license would address this issue, I'd have to craft my own license. But I don't like copyright, at all, so I'm really hesitant to do that.

Trademark seems like a much better fit, and I don't really have any problems with it. I mean, if I buy a Lamy fountain pen, it really helps me to know that it's really a Lamy fountain pen, and not some other trickster selling crap pens under the same name. Trademark seems good. If other people want to sell other fountain pens, they can, but they need to pick a different name and a different mark from the one that Lamy is using.

So, if you're interacting with multiplayer online game service that LOOKS like it's part of my universe, you will know that it really is part of my universe in the future.

fragilityh14 · 2019-03-11 05:18:52

i suppose you're right. Under the previous system there was nothing stopping a person from selling the same thing at lower cost with literally no development costs. For a game 150 people play at a time, it's an unlikely thing for someone to try to do and profit from. If it getting 100k downloads in China, suddenly the nature of what can happen looks drastically different.

I play a fair amount of open source games, and none of them appear to have any profit model. i suppose all you've had going for you thus far is relative obscurity [in terms of no one intentionally stealing your income stream].

I still think that the ultimate result, if things stayed the same, would be that you'd always make enough money with your service to live well on, because everything would always lead to some new players on official servers, but if the game goes "viral" completely unprotected someone can just make a version that plays a 15 sec ad before every game and is free to play or any number of things.

i suppose, with the amount of thought you've given at this point, I wouldn't bet the family home on something like that not destroying your revenue stream.

lionon · 2019-03-11 06:25:54

The concept of "I place it into the public domain." is not something that works across the globe. There are a bunch of countries where this sentence has no legal meaning. So you need fallback options for those countries.

Consider using CC0:
Human version: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
Legal version: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomai … /legalcode

Generally there are so many licenses of free already around, the cacophony is worse enough for people that want to combine stuff from different projects in their "remix". So if by any means possible. Don't make the cacaphony worse by drafting yet another license, which for example, if someone would want to combine it with a GPL product, would have need the FSF to check your license on compatibility.

So as far I see it, it gets pretty close to what you want, but is already better developed in some potential problematic areas and builds fail-safe mechanisms.

PS: The usual "no warranty for any purpose" thing may also be a sensible add-on to protect yourself. One can argue if it is necessary, but it surely doesn't hurt either.

Last edited by lionon (2019-03-11 06:29:55)

lionon · 2019-03-11 06:34:34

Whatever wrote:

Does this mean other people are not allowed to host servers containing the same characters? skins? What does character elements mean?

It means, if you want to call your adaption, server etc. "One hour one life" you need to use Jason's ticket server to determine who can use it (that is, your users must purchase OHOL from him/his steam).

This is IMO fair enough, and yes contrary to drafting yet another free-(no)-copyright license which I would advise against, drafting his own license to use his OHOL trademark I consider a fair idea.

So you either use his ticket server, or change the name icons under which you present your adaption/server so not to infringe the trademark.

Last edited by lionon (2019-03-11 06:35:14)

lionon · 2019-03-11 06:43:17

jasonrohrer wrote:

So, if you're interacting with multiplayer online game service that LOOKS like it's part of my universe, you will know that it really is part of my universe in the future.

I'm certainly not an an expert on trademarks, but I don't think that trademarks work as deep as that. A trademark would protect for calling an adaption "One Hour One Life", or potentially something too similarly (dunno if 2HOL would be considered to similar or different enough) and the Eve icon used to market the game.

But it wouldn't cover adaptions where just screenshots would seem to similar, of a game marketed for example as "60 minutes, 60 years".

CrazyEddie · 2019-03-11 16:26:35

jasonrohrer wrote:

I've talked about how the mobile version has likely helped me financially, because they are operating in a distinct market, and spreading the word about OHOL to the world. Unfortunately (for me, financially), it sounds like that is going to change, when they pick a different title, and start changing the look of their version of the game.

I think you could still find a solution with DD that would keep the tie to your game (and thus continue to help you financially) AND keep it clear - as clear as it can be to a general population who by and large are disinterested in such matters - that the mobile game and your game are distinct and divergent AND do so in a way that doesn't significantly impact DD's plans to produce and market a wildly successful mobile game in various foreign markets AND that both you and they would be comfortable with.

I think most of the issues on both sides have been raised and discussed sufficiently that now, by stepping back for a bit, the entire situation can be reappraised with clear and calm minds. And perhaps that reappraisal will reveal a better solution than the current path.

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-11 16:39:29

Yes, I may need to clarify that in the text above.

In situations where it is impossible to trademark all of my logos, screenshots, banners, graphics, sounds, and characters for whatever reason, I fall back on copyright law for those assets to achieve the same narrow result, as if all those assets were my trademarks for my multiplayer online game service. When necessary, this can be viewed as a non-compete copyright license in the multiplayer online game service space.

But it's easier to understand in terms of trademark.

And I think that my wishes are at least made very clear in the above text from (3), where they weren't before, whether or not I can legally count all that stuff as my trademarks. Use trademark as a metaphor for understanding my wishes.

Grim_Arbiter · 2019-03-11 18:35:43

jasonrohrer wrote:

And yes, BladeWoods, anyone free to make their own separate multiplayer service under a different name and with different artwork and audio. I suppose they could still use my client and server code to make this happen, but the result would not be commercially confusing (because people mostly recognize video games by their titles, graphics, and sound, not the underlying code). Still, they would have a "leg up" on me, because the client and server code was very hard to write. (Though DualDecade apparently didn't use any of the client code.)
My understanding is that I can't trademark "gameplay," so the only way to prevent code-identical clones would be through copyright on the code, and I don't want to do that.

As long as the codes stay free like you stated, I'm all for this. It can be a great starting platform for someone and its a great contribution to everyone. A great tool for the world to have.

Might disagree a tad bit with your stance on 2HOL, but i see where your coming from.

This all kinda reminds me of the stratocaster guitar. There are all kinds of different people and companies that can use the body platform and make their own versions of it, but as long as they don't try and take the trademarked names "strat" or "stratocaster" they can produce it without Fender guitars. It ultimately became the most emulated guitar body and at the same time the most popular guitar you see today.

Is it right that most of those people got somewhat of a free ride by using that body style for recognition? No probably not.. but at the end of the day they used it because it was a great platform that worked.. and now that guitar is the one drawn when you ask a child to draw a guitar. It became culture, or turned into a thing humanity as a whole kinda steals from haha.

ryanb · 2019-03-11 19:00:49

Thank you for adding these clarifications Jason. I have a few questions regarding onetech:

1. Since "One Hour One Life" is trademarked, should I add a ™ when mentioning it in the header?
2. The berry bush is used as the onetech icon, but I assume this is okay since onetech is not considered an online multiplayer game.
3. Does the copyright statement in onetech's MIT license need to specifically exclude your public domain work?

jasonrohrer · 2019-03-11 22:31:28

1. Including (TM) or (SM) is optional for me, and I don't plan to use it. I don't plan to register, so I definitely won't be using (R). People who are not officially using my trademark should not use it, unless they want to establish a distinct trademark themselves in their own line of trade. Because you are not operating in my line of trade, I suppose it's up to you whether you want to trademark One Hour One Life in the realm of tech tree browsers (though it would kinda suck if you did, and would cause it's own form of confusion, because people who don't understand trademark would assume that I'm endorsing you).

2. Yes, my trademark only covers my specific line of trade. Using that berry bush for a tech tree browser or a line of bath towels is a different line of trade.

3. I don't know the answer to this question. I think public domain is more liberal than MIT, right?

Also, from my understanding of trademark, I would be free to do this:

Seems pretty ridiculous.

Chard · 2019-03-11 22:38:10

Firstly: I like the new rules, they're much clearer!

Secondly: I did a little research on trademarks in the US over the course of this debacle. According to the USPTO if you want to enforce a trademark internationally you need to register it. Although I guess they have a vested interest in getting people to register. Also, maybe because you are selling via the Internet you have a trademark in some other countries too. I don't know what counts, this is all really confusing.

CrazyEddie · 2019-03-11 22:44:54

Regarding the McDonald's Videogame:

While generally speaking trademarks are specific to an area of trade, so for example "Apple" the computer company and "Apple" the publisher of the Beatles' music can peacefully coexist, the test of trademark use and infringement is whether it tends to confuse the public as to the origin of the goods and services in trade.

Using the golden arches on anything at all will tend to make the public think that it is produced by the fast food franchise firm who very famously use and own that particular mark. And you can be certain their attorneys will very swiftly ask you to cease and desist, and if you do not you can expect to be on the losing side of a lawsuit.

It's possible that your own trademarks in the One Hour One Life online game would enjoy the same kind of protection against use by anyone else for any other product in any other area of trade, even if you didn't want those marks to be protected in those areas of trade. And it's possible that someone else's use of those trademarks, even on bath towels, could dilute your own rights in those trademarks and eventually lead to the marks becoming genericized, at which point you would have no ability to prevent their use for anything at all, including a directly competing online game.

... standard disclaimer, amateur lawyer, seek professional advice, blah blah blah.

Last edited by CrazyEddie (2019-03-11 22:46:44)

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-03-10 20:01:07

Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#2 2019-03-10 20:18:54

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#3 2019-03-10 20:24:57

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#4 2019-03-10 20:29:09

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#5 2019-03-10 20:33:36

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#6 2019-03-10 20:40:53

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#7 2019-03-10 23:18:05

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#8 2019-03-10 23:47:19

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#9 2019-03-11 00:00:11

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#10 2019-03-11 00:00:57

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#11 2019-03-11 00:30:07

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#12 2019-03-11 00:40:47

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#13 2019-03-11 01:22:46

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#14 2019-03-11 04:45:31

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#15 2019-03-11 05:18:52

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#16 2019-03-11 06:25:54

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#17 2019-03-11 06:34:34

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#18 2019-03-11 06:43:17

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#19 2019-03-11 16:26:35

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#20 2019-03-11 16:39:29

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#21 2019-03-11 18:35:43

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#22 2019-03-11 19:00:49

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#23 2019-03-11 22:31:28

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#24 2019-03-11 22:38:10

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

#25 2019-03-11 22:44:54

Re: Working clarification to no_copyright.txt

Board footer