<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I believe this license is very flawed because it treats all
supposed "IP" the same way. There is no clearly defined group of
rights that are considered "IP." Even the three exclusive rights
commonly assigned to that category (copyright, patent and
trademark) have different policy reasons for existing and trying
to treat them all the same way is, in my view, misguided. <br>
</p>
<p>Copyright and patents are somewhat similar, protecting that which
is original and creative. Trademarks, though, are for the
protection of commerce and fair competition. This license makes no
sense for trademarks (which is why FOSS license almost never
encompass trademarks). Trademark exist only because someone has
exercised exclusivity over a word. If I adopt a trademark
"Escalator" for a set of mechanical stairs, but I then tolerate
(or license) everyone using the the word "escalator" for that same
device, then it's not a trademark anymore because it doesn't
denote a single source. A similar concept is true in trade secret
rights - something is a trade secret because it's a secret. If
everyone gets to use it then it's not a trade secret anymore. <br>
</p>
<p>Trademarks are used to prevent consumer deception. If one cannot
stop misuse of their trademark, then there would be no recourse
against someone who might be causing great harm. Suppose I have a
software program that prevents the installation of malicious
software and it is licensed under the Anti-IP license. Some can
take that very same software, modify it so that it is itself
malicious software, and distribute it with the same name. Under
this license there is nothing the original author can do to stop
that harmful behavior. That's a bad outcome. It's made even more
confusing by your proposed term "No Licensable IP or Restricted
work may be used to commit fraud." Is "likelihood of confusion" in
trademark law what you mean by "fraud"? And how will the person
relying on the license know when their use is lawful or unlawful?
The premise of your license doesn't make sense for trademarks.</p>
<p>Universal treatment doesn't make any sense in many of the areas
you identified in the license. Why should privacy rights, which
protect an individual, be treated the same way as exclusionary
rights in copyright and patent? Aren't the interests quite
different? Isn't is generally considered beneficial that an
individual may stop the unwanted use of their personal information
by third parties? What is gained by forcing someone to give that
up? Same with fair competition, isn't the ability to ensure fair
competition beneficial to society?<br>
</p>
<p>For "Restricted Work," you've used the word "derivative," but
that is a word very specific to copyright law. It's use in other
areas is impossibly ambiguous. What is a "Restricted Work" in
anti-circumvention rights for example, where there isn't the
concept of "infringement"?<br>
</p>
<p>In terms of drafting, I'm not sure what you intend with
"Restricted works may only be assigned to someone that has
publicly licensed IP under this document." Does that mean that if
I want to assign the rights in a Restricted work to someone who is
already using the license for a <i>different</i> work? Why? And
what does "publicly licensed" mean in the Copyleft section of the
license? The word "public" is very unclear.<br>
</p>
<p>If I own a Public Restricted work, I have to assign it away? That
doesn't make sense. If you mean <i>if</i> I assign it, <i>then</i>
I must assign it to a particular person or alternatively grant
everyone rights, why is the assignment of Restricted works
different from Public Restricted works? And what does it mean to
"grant everyone rights to the work under this document"? Isn't
that what the license accomplishes, whether it says so in this
section or not? What does that sentence add?</p>
<p>I believe this license needs substantial drafting work before it
could be approved. I agree with others that it needs the
assistance of an attorney who is experienced in drafting licenses
- drafting legal documents is a specialized skill. I am also
skeptical it would ever be approved because I think it is a
fundamental error to try to lump all "IP" together. I suggest
withdrawing it from license-review while these issues are more
thoroughly considered.<br>
</p>
<p>Pam<br>
</p>
Pamela Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/16/20 11:26 AM, Alex Williams
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+ujgfM1ezJhS_95FcFW4tw5FBPyWriBHzba1vx_RLSFf_Fdpg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Kevin,</div>
<div>I wasn't clear with my wording. I believe the license is
complete subject to feedback I receive about how to improve
its wording or to address any issues that it might have. <br>
I'm happy to move this to license discussion if you or any of
the reviewers believe that is appropriate. Should I do that
now, or should I wait for further questioning on this thread
to get a better assessment of which list the license is best
in its current state?<br>
<br>
I also should state that I'm not a lawyer. The intention with
this modification would be that if fraud is committed the
license would stay fully intact... but the owner's reserve the
right to sue for IP infringement for the limited area of areas
associated with the fraud.<br>
<br>
For example, identity theft defrauds a bank rather than the
owner of the identity. Some people argue identity is a form
of IP. So, in this case the "No fraud" clause would clarify
that the owners are not waiving their right to recourse in
damages caused by identity theft.<br>
<br>
Would this intention be permissible within OSIs definition of
open source? If so, do you believe I should add clarifying
language such as:<br>
Fraudulent use does not terminate your license. However, no
legal remedies for IP infringement are waived for fraudulent
use.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Alex<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:00
AM <<a
href="mailto:license-review-request@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">license-review-request@lists.opensource.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Send
License-review mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a
href="mailto:license-review-request@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review-request@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a
href="mailto:license-review-owner@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review-owner@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Anti-IP License (McCoy Smith)<br>
2. Re: license review request (Simon Phipps)<br>
3. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6 (Alex
Williams)<br>
4. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 6 (Kevin P.
Fleming)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 07:04:13 -0700<br>
From: "McCoy Smith" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law"><mccoy@lexpan.law></a><br>
To: "'License submissions for OSI review'"<br>
<<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Anti-IP License<br>
Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:064601d6a3c5$3a973080$afc59180$@lexpan.law"><064601d6a3c5$3a973080$afc59180$@lexpan.law></a><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
This is an interesting concept, but poorly executed. Kevin
points out one<br>
problem. Another is that it doesn't anywhere discuss source
code (which<br>
would seem to violate OSD 2).<br>
I'd say this is one that really needs a lawyer's involvement,
to ensure its<br>
terms meet the goals of the author and also satisfy the OSD. <br>
FWIW, I'm not sure how this would be found "unconscionable" at
least under<br>
USA law; it appears to be something like an attempt to do a
copyleft public<br>
domain dedication, which AFAIK, isn't unconscionable.<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: License-review <<a
href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>>
On<br>
> Behalf Of Kevin P. Fleming<br>
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 6:29 AM<br>
> To: License submissions for OSI review<br>
<<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Anti-IP License<br>
> <br>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 8:18 AM Alex Williams <<a
href="mailto:implementnap@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">implementnap@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > No Fraud<br>
> ><br>
> > No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to
commit fraud. If you<br>
are<br>
> found guilty of committing fraud using any of the
Licensable IP or a<br>
Restricted<br>
> work in a court of law, then your license ends
immediately.<br>
> <br>
> This is a restriction on use, and thus generally
considered to be<br>
incompatible<br>
> with the OSD. If this was to have any chance at approval
at all, the<br>
license<br>
> termination would need to apply to only the limited usage
of the covered<br>
> works which were involved in the fraudulent activity. If
the licensee also<br>
uses<br>
> the covered works in other activities, which have not
been determined to<br>
be<br>
> fraudulent, then those licenses would have to stay in
force. My opinion of<br>
> course, IANAL, yadda yadda.<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the
sender and not<br>
necessarily<br>
> those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from
the Open Source<br>
> Initiative will be sent from an <a
href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a>
email address.<br>
> <br>
> License-review mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
> <a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-</a><br>
> <a href="http://review_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:08:09 +0100<br>
From: Simon Phipps <<a href="mailto:simon@webmink.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">simon@webmink.com</a>><br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law">mccoy@lexpan.law</a>, License submissions for OSI review<br>
<<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [License-review] license review request<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a
href="mailto:CAA4ffp_gmiN81MbjknO-jp54%2Bs7yiJ2o55cwXW%2BQCjQKPyOFhg@mail.gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">CAA4ffp_gmiN81MbjknO-jp54+s7yiJ2o55cwXW+QCjQKPyOFhg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I agree. This is a submission that would have been better
caught in<br>
moderation and rejected with an explanation of the
misunderstanding.<br>
<br>
S.<br>
<br>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 2:53 PM McCoy Smith
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mccoy@lexpan.law"><mccoy@lexpan.law></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
> This appears to be nothing more than 2-clause BSD:<br>
> <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> It?s not clear why you are looking for approval for an
already-approved<br>
> license.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> [Also, you didn?t seem to provide the information
required for a license<br>
> submission: <a href="https://opensource.org/approval"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/approval</a>,
in particular, whether this<br>
> received legal review and distinguishing it from OSI
approved licenses,<br>
> particularly BSD 2-clause]<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *From:* License-review <<a
href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org</a>>
*On<br>
> Behalf Of *Seung-Eon Roh<br>
> *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2020 1:16 PM<br>
> *To:* <a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
> *Subject:* [License-review] license review request<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Dear,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I?m writing to request an approval of open source license
for a matlab<br>
> code for neuroscience data analysis.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *Submission type*: Approval<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *License name*: Calcium signal processing for
neuroscience<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *License*:<br>
><br>
> Copyright (c) 2020, Seung-Eon Roh<br>
><br>
> All rights reserved.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with
or without<br>
> modification, are permitted provided that the following
conditions are met:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the
above copyright<br>
><br>
> notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer.<br>
><br>
> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the
above copyright<br>
><br>
> notice, this list of conditions and the following
disclaimer in<br>
><br>
> the documentation and/or other materials provided
with the<br>
> distribution<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS "AS<br>
> IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO,<br>
> THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR<br>
> PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
OWNER OR<br>
> CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,<br>
> EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO,<br>
> PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS;<br>
> OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY,<br>
> WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
NEGLIGENCE OR<br>
> OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF<br>
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> *The link to public link for the code*:<br>
><br>
> <a
href="https://github.com/NeuRoh1/Calcium_signal_processing"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/NeuRoh1/Calcium_signal_processing</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I?m enclosing a Matlab code which will be licensed for.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> This licensing is intended to support the supplement
documentation of<br>
> matlab code for an article publication in eLife Journal.
Please let me know<br>
> if the request is in a good shape.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Seung-Eon Roh<br>
><br>
> Post-doc researcher<br>
><br>
> Department of Neuroscience<br>
><br>
> Johns Hopkins University<br>
><br>
> Baltimore, MD<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/603e21d9/attachment-0001.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/603e21d9/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 09:47:35 -0500<br>
From: Alex Williams <<a
href="mailto:implementnap@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">implementnap@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95,
Issue 6<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CA+ujgfOhjZQPEcuvsO1sbfCHzk68ZhYZt9R=<a
href="mailto:GwrtdMRmWRv2Sw@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">GwrtdMRmWRv2Sw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Kevin:<br>
I thought about your comment on the fraud section. I don't
think we need<br>
license termination for that section. What if the section
merely read:<br>
No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit
fraud<br>
<br>
Would that change address your concern regarding "No
Discrimination against<br>
fields of endeavor"?<br>
<br>
Also, thank you for taking the time to review the license. If
we can<br>
perfect it and get it approved, I plan to use it in my company
and<br>
encourage others to do so as well. Overall, I think the
license has reached<br>
a stable point in terms of intent. However, I suspect there
are sections<br>
where the wording can be improved. So, I'm happy to work with
any<br>
constructive feedback you might have. In reference to one
comment, I<br>
received recently here is one question I have: Here are my
current<br>
questions:<br>
Is there any substantial difference between:<br>
a) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included
work can or<br>
will be able to license.<br>
b) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the included
work can or<br>
will be able to license that would otherwise infringe that
owner's IP<br>
rights.<br>
<br>
If so, which definition is better?<br>
<br>
-Alex<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/60aa7659/attachment-0001.html"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201016/60aa7659/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 10:59:23 -0400<br>
From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <<a
href="mailto:kevin%2Bosi@km6g.us" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kevin+osi@km6g.us</a>><br>
To: License submissions for OSI review<br>
<<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 95,
Issue 6<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAE+UdorG=<a
href="mailto:FKOCFbwEQq%2BADJKoY47sFfSqRQu06Tr_-AJ-kMPcQ@mail.gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">FKOCFbwEQq+ADJKoY47sFfSqRQu06Tr_-AJ-kMPcQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br>
<br>
If you're still drafting the license, this should be moved to<br>
license-discuss, not on license-review. Submission for
approval should<br>
be for a license that you consider to be complete, and that
you revise<br>
based on feedback during the review process.<br>
<br>
Regarding the 'field of endeavor' restriction, I'm not a
lawyer, but I<br>
don't see how your suggested change would make any difference.
If you<br>
tell the licensee that the covered works cannot be used to
commit<br>
fraud, then that implies that the license is<br>
vacated/nullified/terminated in that situation.<br>
<br>
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:48 AM Alex Williams <<a
href="mailto:implementnap@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">implementnap@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear Kevin:<br>
> I thought about your comment on the fraud section. I
don't think we need license termination for that section. What
if the section merely read:<br>
> No Licensable IP or Restricted work may be used to commit
fraud<br>
><br>
> Would that change address your concern regarding "No
Discrimination against fields of endeavor"?<br>
><br>
> Also, thank you for taking the time to review the
license. If we can perfect it and get it approved, I plan to
use it in my company and encourage others to do so as well.
Overall, I think the license has reached a stable point in
terms of intent. However, I suspect there are sections where
the wording can be improved. So, I'm happy to work with any
constructive feedback you might have. In reference to one
comment, I received recently here is one question I have: Here
are my current questions:<br>
> Is there any substantial difference between:<br>
> a) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the
included work can or will be able to license.<br>
> b) "Licensable IP" means all IP the owners of the
included work can or will be able to license that would
otherwise infringe that owner's IP rights.<br>
><br>
> If so, which definition is better?<br>
><br>
> -Alex<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the
sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source
Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will
be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a>
email address.<br>
><br>
> License-review mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
> <a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of License-review Digest, Vol 95, Issue 7<br>
*********************************************<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>