Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix

GPL and Leased Software? 169

Posted by Cliff from the tricky-licensing-issues dept.
LordByronStyrofoam asks: "In the body of the article linked in the recent Silicon Valley Has Learned to Love the Bust, Salesforce.com and IBM were said to be planning to lease or rent software. IBM did this for many years back when they controlled the big iron market. It reveals a bottom layer in the cultural strata of software users: those who use Free Software; those who click through EULA's and the associated closed-source licenses; and the lowly renters. Do renters of GPL software have no rights under the GPL? Is this situation similar to the one where the makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to provide the source, even though the devices are based on embedded Linux?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPL and Leased Software? More

GPL and Leased Software?

Comments Filter:

  • "Silicon Valley Has Learned to Love the Bust" (Score:5, Funny)

    by macshune ( 628296 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:11PM (#5865638) Journal
    Given the name of the place, you would think they'd done this years ago!

  • Hmm... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:13PM (#5865657)
    Although I agree that if you rent hardware containing GPLed software you don't have the right to view it (because it isn't being distributed to you, technically speaking) I strongly disagree with the assertion that Open Source people are pirates.

    If it's GPLed, you can just get the source somewhere else, right? What's the issue here then?

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) * <bruce@perens.com> on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:02PM (#5866263) Homepage Journal
      Nope, you'd still be obligated to disclose the source in hardware that is rented. The software's still being distributed. The form of the financial transaction doesn't matter.

      The GPL requires the person who distributes the binary to distribute the source (especially if that is a commercial distribution). It is not legal to pass that obligation off to some public web site not affiliated with the people who distribute the binary.

      Bruce

      • IIRC, the GPL states that the source must be available for distribution, but doesn't specify the method(s) of distributing it.

        The distributor could create CD-Rs of the source to the device (or app) and then send a copy of the source CD-R only to any people who actually ask for it - it isn't necessary to send the source at the same time as the binary.

        IOW, they are under no obligation to include the source code to the device to everyone who rents it, only to those who take the time to ask them for the sourc

        • IIRC, the GPL states that the source must be available for distribution, but doesn't specify the method(s) of distributing it.

          If I load GPL binaries on my hardware and rent that hardware, AFAIK (but IANAL) I only have to distribute the source if the renter can get at the binaries. If they can't see the binaries, then I'm not obligated to provide the source. So, if I put the source into the hardware, right next to the binaries, I should be covered, right? I mean, if they have to hack into the hardware to

  • GPL v3? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <travis@uUUUtk.edu minus threevowels> on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:14PM (#5865662) Homepage Journal
    or clarification of the term "distribution"

    I'm gonna call the manufacturers of all my embedded stuff now. Wasting company time is a great hobby, I recommend it for everyone.

  • Inflammatory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gizzmonic ( 412910 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:14PM (#5865663) Homepage Journal
    It reveals a bottom layer in the cultural strata of software users: those who use Free Software;

    Okay, that's just not true. Is there a "caste" system for software users? I would certainly hope not, to create one would be a pointless and self-indulgent intellectual exercise.

    But even if there were to be such a thing, would free software users belong at the bottom? Some would say yes, because they're cheap. But if you think about it, actually free software users require a lot more from their software.

    We don't like bugs. We don't like bloat. We don't like giving up control of our files in exchange for shiney, flashy interfaces. As a result, very few softwares (like Apache for instance) meet our standards.

    Damn this kind of stratification, but if it does exist, put free software users at the top of the pyramid, where we belong. You can put the braindead 12 yearolds downloading from Kazaa at the bottom.

    • Re:Inflammatory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OECD ( 639690 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:36PM (#5865785) Journal

      Damn this kind of stratification, but if it does exist, put free software users at the top of the pyramid, where we belong.

      Read closer: "It reveals a bottom layer in the cultural strata of software users: those who use Free Software; those who click through EULA's and the associated closed-source licenses; and the lowly renters." (Emphasis mine.)

      I.E., the renters are the bottom layer, and the Free software users are at the top where you want them.

      • Nice call. Wish I had mod points for ya, OECD, and if any mods are reading this, you know what to do. But since I'm here, I'll digress a little....

        I personally think that particular sentence was poorly phrased, and it took a little thought for me to extract the information from it.

        But you're right -- strata is plural, and being after the colon, the list of three items describes the cultural strata. The fact that the lowly renters are the bottom stratum of the three listed (though implied from the word

    • Re:Inflammatory (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jonfelder ( 669529 )
      I'm not sure how you can make this comparison (i.e. free software users don't like shiney interfaces, etc). Are you implying that people pay to use gnome and KDE and the rest of us that don't pay only use CLI? How about the fact that almost everything released these days is skinnable? Mplayer, XMMS, Mozilla, etc... I'd consider being skinnable to be "shiney and flashy". Furthermore I don't think anyone likes bugs. Whether people like bloat or not is debatable. Some people like their software to be fe
  • The GPL covers distributing the original owner's code. Legally speaking when you give a representation to a copyrighted work, you are distributing it to them, no matter by what means or how you are compensated in return. (This is why music services have to get permission from the copyright holder to use a CD in their playlist.)

    There is no story here.

  • Distribution is distribution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) * on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:18PM (#5865679)
    With any copyrightable material, you never actually own it, you only own the media. The GPL difference is that you are allowed to redistribute the source, not just the media. It's the license that enables it. Just by being distributed, you are entitled to a copy of the source. The only question left is, do you have to turn the source back in once the rental period ends? No, because the GPL makes no such distinction. The very fact that you are allowed to redistribute the source makes it impossible to put a time limit on it.
    • That depends on what you think it means to own information.

      Owning the copyright on a piece of information is not the same as owning a piece of information.

      Certainly, if I buy media containing information, that doesn't give me owership of the copyright on that information.

      I think it does give me ownership of the information.

      Conversely, ownership of copyright does not necessarily imply ownership of the information. I have heard that many record companies maintain ownership of master recordings. The artist
      • Certainly, if I buy media containing information, that doesn't give me owership of the copyright on that information.

        I think it does give me ownership of the information.

        No it doesn't. It gives you ownership of that copy of the information.

        1) you can do most stuff with your copy of the information that doesn't involve making more copies

        2) under very limited circumstances you can make more copies

        __________

        I think your thing with the artists would be:

        -- artist owns rights to the master
        -- studio ha
        • So our disagreement is on the definition of ownership. I see the ownership of a copy of information to be the same as ownership of information. I don't believe that information has some Platonic form over which ownership can be defined.

          If I have possession of some piece of information, I can do anything I want except the things that copyright law reserves for the copyright holder. The law does not enumerate what rights I have -- it simply restricts the rights I would normally have over my property.

          If I ow
          • I see the ownership of a copy of information to be the same as ownership of information.

            I don't think you mean that. I own a copy of WindowsXP I can sell that copy for money. I can duplicate that copy for my own needs. I can't sell those copies for money. Conversely Microsoft can produce and can sell them for money. So in some sense they seem to have more ownership of the information than I do.

            That's what my post was refering to. You own the rights to a copy not to the information. That the copy
            • I don't think you mean that. I own a copy of WindowsXP I can sell that copy for money. I can duplicate that copy for my own needs. I can't sell those copies for money. Conversely Microsoft can produce and can sell them for money. So in some sense they seem to have more ownership of the information than I do.

              In some sense that seems true, but it doesn't really fit with what I consider ownership. If you buy a copy of WindowsXP, MS cannot demand that you return their property because it does not belong to th
              • Jeff: I think you are missing a crucial point here. The law in general prohibits making any copies. It specifically allows certain types of copying. That is any copy made not for one of the enumerated purposes is an illicit copy which is the derivation of the term "copyright" i.e. the right to make copies.

                Naurish: Copyright limits your right to use copyrighted information that you own (and in doing so promotes the creation of more information). It also defines exceptions to those limitations. Outside of t

  • Distribution includes leasing (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:19PM (#5865693)
    From 17 USC 106: "to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"

    So, that would be distribution, and would need to happen under GPL terms.

  • The GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:20PM (#5865698)
    fundamentally, is very simple.

    This issue, I'm sure, will get clouded beyond reason, by those who are going by what they think the GPL is about rather than what it says.

    When you make a work based on GPL code, the following can be said, logically:

    The first law in question is: Copryight

    Under copyright law, do I have permission to "lease" copies of software that I do not hold the copyright to, to others? No, I don't. Why? Because that requries making COPIES, which I am not allowed to do under copyright law (other than fair-use.. which this certainly isn't)

    So.. that iother avenue is open? Well, the software is covered by the GPL.. so that lets you do some things normally reserved for the copyrgiht older....

    It clearly states that you cannot distribute copies to anyone unless it's under the terms of the GPL. As another poster said, the GPL does not cover "ownership", it covers copying & distribution. This is not about who owns software... you can't say "well it's still ours, we are just letting you borrow it".

    So in short:
    Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder.
    The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.

    It's very clear cut.

    • Actually, it does. The GPL isn't a Copyright type, it's an End User License Agreement. It's contract made between the End User, and the Copyright owner.

      You'll notice the Copyright XXXX Authors Name

      This piece of software is owned by the author who wrote it. However the license allows for the distribution you outline above. But because you don't own it, you can't say for example, change the license. However the Author can, but the Author can't change the license on the distributed copies, nor can they chan

      • Actually, it does. The GPL isn't a Copyright type, it's an End User License Agreement. It's contract made between the End User, and the Copyright owner.

        What makes you say it's a EULA? The text of the gpl [gnu.org] indicates otherwise to me:


        Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Progr

      • Okay two points. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mindstrm ( 20013 )
        First, what point of mine is it you are disputing? It's not clear

        Second, the GPL is absolutely NOT an EULA. IT even states right there in the GPL it is NOT A USE LICENSE. It does not cover the usage of the software at all, and you do not have to accept it to use the software.

        The GPL is a license that grants you permissions above and beyond what you are allowed to do under copyright law.

        I'm not sure what point you are disputing.. what you say about how the GPL works with reference to the original copyrigh

      • The GPL isn't a Copyright type, it's an End User License Agreement. It's contract made between the End User, and the Copyright owner.

        You are mistaken.

        It is important to understand the distinction between *using* software and *copying* software (where "copy" is shorthand for copy, modify or distribute). Using OpenOffice to write a letter is an example of use. Selling boxed copies of OpenOffice is not an example of use.

        The EULA has nothing to do with copyright. Normal copyright still applies so you

    • So in short:
      Copyright says you can't lease out copies without permission of the copyright holder.
      The copiright holder gave you permission, via the GPL, to distribute copies ONLY IF YOU license those copies to those to whom you disribute under the GPL.

      That tells me nothing about current IBM practices.

      Suppose that I'm leasing an IBM kernel that's under the GPL and I decide that I don't need IBM at the end of my lease term. In theory, I own the software because I have the source and compile it on my onw, n

      • IBM can not lease you GPLed code unless they wrote it. They can lease the media its on and they can charge you for support but they can't charge you for the software. If the CEO of the company wants to think they are "leasing" the software from IBM (just like in the goold old days when computers didn't crash), thats fine but ifyou take a magnifying glass to teh small print on the contract, it will be that the software is given away (if the GPLSed stuff is mentioned at all) and the fees are for support.
        • First, let me state I'm not talking about any code distirbute by ti's authors; authors are not bound by any license; they own he code outright... so any discussion about what they can and cannot do with the GPL is irrelevant.

          Where did you get the idea they cannot charge you for software? The GPL says nothing at all about whether or not you can charge for software.

          I can take the linux kernel, modify it, and sell copies for $50,000 a pop.

          The GPL lets me do this as long as I provide them with source (or equ
  • The GPL covers binary distribution clearly. If you distribute binaries from MODIFIED SOURCE you are obligated to include the modified source.

    Renters do not receive distribution.

    Case in point: I run Linux, to serve web pages that are dynamically constructed by Tomcat and Apache. Where is the distribution of GPLed software happening in this scenario? I simply rent managed database storage, and provide the web interface.

    Surely the GPL was never intended to cover undistributed modifications, or else the
  • I've often wondered - what is a website's distribution? If a website (say, sourceforge) uses GPL'd software, and I use it, am I entitled to the source?
    • No. There's talk this may be addressed in GPL3.

      • Re:What about websites? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by afidel ( 530433 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:51PM (#5865865)
        This would be bad precedent. Normally the output of the program is not covered by the liscense of the program itself. By making the output of the back end system (the html "page") grounds for new rights this would turn things upside down. Now as an example you are given a Gimp produced photo should you have access to any modification the producer has made to the Gimp?? I would say no. The fact that you have access to the output of the program should not give you any rights to the program itself, giving you results is not the same as distributing the program.
      • I think it'd be a bad idea to restrict it...but there is one thought in my mind.

        If client/server software catches on and reliable broadband becomes universal, all companies need to do is provide a thin client running something like X or VNC or something higher level and never distribute any binaries.

    • Re:What about websites? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:45PM (#5865831) Homepage
      Another easy one, answered by the GPL:

      "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)."

      When you visit Sourceforge, what you see is a web page, which is the output of their content software. The web page is not a derivative work of that software, therefore not covered.

      Which is just common sense: The copyright covers the Program, and the output of the Program isn't the Program, unless of course it is. :)

    • Hit the old View Source button and there you go.

      Unless you mean the source to whatever CGI scripts, etc. may have conspired to generate the HTML/J-script/etc. your browser is decoding. Since you have been sent the OUTPUT from those things, it would fall under the same category as a compiler, where producing a binary from GPL'd source does not give rights to the source for the compiler.

      If it worked that way, then I'd have the source to Windows and perhaps even the Athlon it's running on.
    • If you use the GNU tools to create a program, does that automatically make the program created GPL?
      Or for those who hate MS, if you used Visual Studio.Net does that automatically make your program property of Microsoft?
      No. This would be a Really Bad Thing (tm) in my mind.
      • If you use the GNU tools to create a program, does that automatically make the program created GPL?

        No it would require that the program be a derived work. That's a much tougher criteria than simply used to create.

        Or for those who hate MS, if you used Visual Studio.Net does that automatically make your program property of Microsoft?

        Microsoft's license is quite generous in terms of ownership even for derived works. This is a bad example.
        • The guy asked if you created a webpage with open source tools, would it be open source. In which I responded No
          They are both examples of why it is stupid to automatically license the source of the program based on the license of the program.
          You may need to take some pain killers for that knee. How about next time you read the comment, count to 10, read it again, and then think about posting.
  • are those who write their own stuff!
  • Is this situation similar to the one where the makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to provide the source, even though the devices are based on embedded Linux?"

    This is false -- people who make embedded devices using GPL software must make available source code to that software.
    • er, s/make/distribute, by selling, leasing, etc/
    • Yes, they must provide source, but only source of programs covered under the GPL. Most likely, the code that is in the embedded devices is a mix of GPL code aggregated with CSS code.

      So, yes, you can demand a copy of the source, but all you will get is a cut down GNU/Linux, without the CSS code added by the manufacturer.

      Of couse there is also the possiblity that the manufacturer has combined their code with GPL code and in this case, they must give you all the source, including that which they would cons

      • they must give you all the source, including that which they would consider closed, proprietary, trade secret, etc.

        No. That is one possible (very unlikely) remedy. A judge is more likely to think that removing the GPLed code and paying a fine would be appropriate, though.
    • Thank you. I just hate to see such glaring misinformation about the GPL on the front page of slashdot.

      Bruce

      • 1) Take router - i386 tiny board.
        2) Put on Linux kernel + Busy Box + uClibc
        3) Put on closed source, linked against uClibc application that contains in itself no GPL Code.

        Question: Does source for that closed source application have to, in any way, be provided under the terms of the GPL ?

        As far as I understood it, the ONLY things that would HAVE to be provided would be a CD with the Linux Kernel, Busy Box, and uClibC, should someone ask for it.
        (plus any changes you made to the above source)

        Is th

  • FSF take on it (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:30PM (#5865755)
    http://www.gldialtone.com/GPLsvcs.htm

    The Free Software Foundation has confirmed that there is nothing in the GPL license restricting anybody from charging access fees to a server running GPL software. Is this a business opportunity or what?
  • I got to this article from Google News. Does anyone know if Slashdot had a big increase in traffic because of this?

    "That Instant Karma gonna get you!"

  • Caste systems (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:45PM (#5865828) Journal
    In caste systems, the wealthiest and most powerful (not neccassarily the most enlightened most integral to society) sit atop the throne. At the bottom lurk those without wealth and political influence.

    This analogy doesn't work with software at the current time, when you consider the "poorest" of the operating system citizens weilds incredible influence. I liken the current political atmosphere of software to a popular revolution, not to a long standing judicial tradition.

  • What about ASPs? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Friday May 02, 2003 @06:45PM (#5865832) Homepage
    So let's say that this "leasing" is really taking place in the form of an Application Service Provider. Let's say then that (as per the GPL - flame me if I'm wrong, please) I modified OpenOffice or something and I'm offering it as an online service. But I'm not giving you the source. Technically I'm not engaging in redistribution of a modified version of something covered by the GPL, right?

    OTOH, if leasing is physical distribution of the software under some sort of license, then I suppose the GPL would apply.

    • "So let's say that this "leasing" is really taking place in the form of an Application Service Provider. Let's say then that (as per the GPL - flame me if I'm wrong, please) I modified OpenOffice or something and I'm offering it as an online service. But I'm not giving you the source. Technically I'm not engaging in redistribution of a modified version of something covered by the GPL, right?"

      Recent court decisions have indicated that loading a program into memory creates a copy that is covered by copyright
  • This and other recent developments in IT have made it clear to me that even in technology history has a way of repeating itself. First we had models of large centralized computers with leased applications, etc. Then the "PC Revolution" moved the industry into a more decentralized model. Now I'm working with Web Services and I see the old becoming new again. Centralized computing (albeit more distributed now!), with metered applications or even leased applications (the paradigm is the same, you pay X for

  • Erroneous Assumptions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @07:17PM (#5865969) Homepage
    > Do renters of GPL software have no rights under
    > the GPL?

    I've never seen a software rental agreenent that would not be in direct violation of the GPL.

    > Is this situation similar to the one where the
    > makers of DSL/cable routers don't have to
    > provide the source, even though the devices are
    > based on embedded Linux?"

    Can you provide some support for the claim that such a situation exists?

  • Ahh, the old "ASP Loophole" -- Some good articles (Score:3, Interesting)

    by justdisguyyaknow ( 568860 ) on Friday May 02, 2003 @08:09PM (#5866288)
    Not a new concept or a new problem. (I dealt with it myself... in a past life.)

    Here's an interesting article [newsforge.com] from 2000 written by someone who actually had a dialogue with RMS about the subject.

    It actually links to an even older Slashdot article [slashdot.org] about the same subject.

    The basic story was a developer wanted to release his product as open source but didn't want to see someone grab it, set up a competing site and not have to share code.

    That story links to a SourceForge.net forum thread which is now offline, or at least "restricted to members of this group" (?). I believe they had similar issues back when they published their code.

    In the end, looks like nothing was ever resolved...

  • The way I see it, a central repository for GPL'd code should be set up so that anybody putting their changes into code can make archival copies of an entire build environment on a public server.

    This way, if someone needs to modify the software and/or if the company that made it goes out of business, a copy is available in a central place such that anybody can obtain it and continue to use it. Also, the company wouldn't have to worry about making released code available because it already is.

    The FSF would be

  • Danger! Danger! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by griffinn ( 240043 )
    If renting is not "distribution" as the GPL defined it, you can essentially circumvent all of GPL's requirements when you distribute software by saying you're only renting the software to the end user for an indefinite period of time, or until the year 3003 etc.
  • They're renting cpu time, drive space, backup tapes, techs to keep everything running and reasonably secure, bandwidth, physical security, hardware wear and tear and so on. I run Apache, Mysql, PHP, on Linux box and I host web and email. Do you think I have to give everyone who hosts a website or an email account with me the source code to every GPLed piece of software they use that's installed on my machine? Maybe you also think I should send them a copy of every copyleft howto I've read to figure out how

  • Licenses for idiots (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gregm ( 61553 ) on Saturday May 03, 2003 @04:12AM (#5867961)
    Microsoft EULA
    They rent you parts of a book. You agree to not allow anyone else to look at the book. If you stop paying you get to keep the book parts but can never open them again. Microsoft can change what the book says whenever they want. You cannot sell your book parts even when you're finished with them. You cannot change the words in the book even to fix spelling/punctuation errors. Microsoft can change the terms of the agreement whenever they like... you cannot. The BSA goons can walk in with their government law enforcement lapdogs and make you drop your pants for an audit whenever they like. Don't loose those receipts!

    Regular Proprietary software
    "They" sell you a copy of a book. You can read the book for as long as you want. You may not let anyone else read the book unless you agree to stop reading the book. Sometimes you may edit the book but you cannot ever allow anyone to read the edited version. The BSA goons can walk in with their government law enforcement lapdogs and make you drop your pants for an audit whenever they like. Don't loose those receipts!

    GPL
    You own a copy of the book. You can make as many copies as you want. You can sell or give away as many copies as you want. You can completely rewrite the book, however If you edit the book and give it away or sell it you must include your edits and you must pass these same rules along to anyone who gets your copy of the book. You must also give credit to the original author(s) of the book. The original author(s) of the book can change the agreement at any time but you can refuse to accept any changes in the agreement with your edition of the book. The BSA can go to hell and you can burn any receipts you may or may not have aquired.

    BSD
    You own the book. You an do whatever you like with the book except remove the credit of the original author(s) but so can everyone else. The BSA can go to hell.

    Public Domain
    You own the book and the idea behind the book but so does everyone else. You can claim it as your own and can do whatever you like but so can everyone else. The BSA can go to hell.

    The GPL is the only license (mentioned here) that requires you to give something back if you distribute the software. In my opinion that's why it's the most morally correct. The GPL is why I'm a Linux fan even though I feel the BSD's are still superior in most ways. Microsoft's perversion of Kerebos would not have been legal under the GPL.

    G
    • You can claim it as your own and can do whatever you like but so can everyone else.

      It's still dangerous to claim PD material as your own. Yes, you own a nonexclusive copyright to it, and don't need to credit the author in any way. But to claim you are the author is dishonest, and can get you expelled/fired for plagiarism. Or exposed to civil liability, and maybe even arrested for fraud (a big stretch).

  • Borderline? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mobileone ( 615808 )
    1) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at my own premises for my own purposes: No need to share the source.

    2) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at my own premises and allow customers to use the services provided by the code: No need to share the source.

    3) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at a server farm: Do I need to share the source? Think not?

    4) I modify GPL'ed code, run it at a server farm and allow customers to use the services provided by the code: Do I need to share the source? Think not?

    5) I modify GPL

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close