There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

With GPL, you're programming Freedom. With MIT, you're programming for free.

Context:

Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as “cuck licenses”) like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There’s nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.

Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that’s suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it’s protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.

Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.

db2 ,

Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as “cuck licenses”)

That’s where I stopped reading. 👎

homesweethomeMrL ,

I mean, it’s funny for a couple of reasons

sleen ,

I guess they take things seriously even in a linuxmemes community

anyhow2503 ,

The joke in the OP stops at the beginning of the joke explanation. If you just share your honest opinion like that in a shitposting community, you can’t expect everyone to “play along” with your “joke”.

ikidd ,
@ikidd@lemmy.world avatar

Memes are srs bidness.

criss_cross ,

Yeah I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term before in my life and I’ve been doing this for a while.

And I don’t think I ever wanna hear it again.

db2 ,

It’s a term Trump cultists use.

best_username_ever ,

There’s nothing Tanenbaum could do

Tanenbaum doesn’t seem to mind

Today OP was very dumb and showed his ignorance of the concept “I do whatever I fucking want.” Don’t be like OP.

people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license

They’re free to change the licence of future versions. OP also failed at understanding the concept of licences. He’s such a silly moron!

renzev OP ,

They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

Why do you act like I don’t know that? The issue here is that once you realize that the license you chose does not reflect your intentions, the damage has likely already been done. From the article I linked:

I didn’t have the foresight to see this coming. I didn’t think people so lacked in the spirit of open source. I wanted to promote community contributions, not to have them monetized by other people who don’t even provide the source to their modifications. I wanted to grow the tools as a community, not have closed source forks of them overtake my own open source versions.

TheEntity ,

They’re free to change the licence of future versions.

Only if they are still the only contributor. Once you have more contributors, it gets far tougher to change the licence.

renzev OP ,

How does it work with contributors? Does absolutely everyone have to consent to having the license changed? If one of the contributors doesn’t consent, can the maintainer “cut out” their contributions into a separate program and redistribute it as a plugin with the original license?

QuazarOmega ,

You can keep all the lines of those who didn’t accept to the change with the original license, it will end up as a bad mix, but it’s doable if the licenses are compatible

woelkchen ,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

Does absolutely everyone have to consent to having the license changed?

Very minor changes (like fixing typos in comments) aren’t copyrightable, so these changes don’t require approval. When LibreOffice was relicensed, IIRC they they had some cutoff regarding lines of code.

dariusj18 ,

Pretty sure that with a permissive license you can just change the license of future versions as you want. Ex. v1 MIT license with thousanda.of contributors, v2 Commercial license with contributions from anyone who agrees to contribute to the new version and license. (Anyone can fork v1 and start their own licensed project)

Regalia ,
@Regalia@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Are we really going to start this pointless discussion again? They are two licenses with different use cases and different considerations. GPL has a lot more mental overhead to using it, MIT is hands off, both of these aren’t inherently invalid.

Also Tanenbaum in your own link mentions that Intel probably would have just written their own microkernel if need be.

renzev OP ,

I agree that permissive licenses have their place for smaller projects (I personally use CC0 from small programs). The FSF suggests Apache license for programs with less than 300 lines (approximately) in order to avoid the overhead that you mentioned. The LGPL was also created in cases where allowing your free code to be used in nonfree contexts can help advance free software as a movement (e.g. writing a free replacement for a proprietary codec). But I also believe that if you really want to support free software, you have a moral duty to release anything “big” that you make under a copyleft license.

GravitySpoiled , (edited )

I published some packages under MIT a couple of years ago. It is difficult to understand at first, I was happy with the license because anyone could use it like they want.

Today, I understand that I want to use GPL. With GPL everyone can use the code like they want and I can use their code like I want.

takeda ,

For writing an application GPL is fine if you don’t want anyone to profit from your work and if they make changes, contribute back.

Things are a little bit more complex if you are writing a library or code that is meant to be included in another application.

If you use GPL you might get rejected even by other open source applications, as GPL might be understandable as it will change license off the application or be outright incompatible.

This was the case with cursor library after author changed license everyone stopped using it: github.com/…/885156333ac9ca335a587b1dd08964074313…

The most ironic thing is that he created package from stack overflow answer:

github.com/GijsTimmers/cursor/blob/…/cursor.py

The original author never said they are releasing copyright or are making it public domain.

ReveredOxygen ,
@ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works avatar

Isn’t this why LGPL exists?

uis ,

It is

uis ,

if you don’t want anyone to profit from your work

Technically you can. There are two popular models: Lua model and RedHat model. In first you are paid to develop requeated features, in second for support.

TheImpressiveX ,

The MIT license guarantees freedom for developers. The GPL guarantees freedom for end users.

Adanisi ,
@Adanisi@lemmy.zip avatar

This is the best way I’ve heard it said.

SeattleRain ,

Nah, it’s called the cuck license for a reason.

bruhduh ,
@bruhduh@lemmy.world avatar

c/brandnewsentence

Irelephant ,
@Irelephant@lemm.ee avatar

!brandnewsentence

TheOubliette ,

The MIT license guarantees that businesses will use it because it’s free and they don’t have to think about releasing code or hiding their copyright infringement. The developers I’ve seen using that license, or at least those who put some thought into it, did do because they want companies to use it and therefore boost their credibility through use and bug reports, etc. They knowingly did free work for a bunch of companies as a way to build their CV, basically. Like your very own self-imposed unpaid internship.

The GPL license is also good for developers, as they know they can work on a substantial project and have some protections against others creating closed derived works off of it. It’s just a bit more difficult to get enterprise buy-in, which is not a bad thing for many projects.

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@kbin.run avatar

Not all of us write code simply for monetary gain and some of us have philosophical differences on what you can and should own as far as the public commons goes. And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.

TheOubliette ,

Software licenses don’t change ownership. That requires transfer of copyright, like with contributor agreements.

Though I am aware that a small set of people seek less copyleft licenses because they think they’re better. They are usually wrong in their thinking, but they do exist.

I’m not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@kbin.run avatar

I'm not sure what you are referring to about ontologically bad. Has someone said this?

I'm going by the vibe of the comments of people here who are generally anti-MIT. That the very nature of allowing someone to use your code in a closed-source project without attribution is bad. Phrasing it as "hiding their copyright infringement", for example, implies that it is copyright infringement per se regardless of the license or the spirit in which it was released.

TheOubliette ,

Oh no I mean that there are companies that just don’t care about licensing and plod ahead hoping it’s never an issue. Like having devs build a “prototype” that they know uses AGPL code and saying, “we will swap this out later” and then 6 months later the “prototype” is in production.

Personally, I make a lot of my personal projects’ code closed because I specifically don’t want it to be useable by others. Not for jerky reasons, but strategic ones. IMO common licenses don’t achieve what a lot of people hope they do.

grue ,

And not all of us view closed derivatives as a ontologically bad.

Please explain how allowing a third-party to limit computer users’ ability to control and modify their own property is anything other than ontologically bad?

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@kbin.run avatar

If I release something free of restrictions to the world as a gift, that is my prerogative. And a third party's actions don't affect my ability to do whatever I want with the original code, nor the users of their product's ability to do what they want with my code. And the idea of "property" here is pretty abstract. What is it you own when you purchase software? Certainly not everything. Probably not nothing. But there is a wide swath in between in which reasonable people can disagree.

If you are an intellectual property abolitionist, I doubt there is much I can say to change your mind.

grue ,

I’m not convinced something being your “perogative” and it being “ontologically bad” are mutually exclusive, so I don’t see how that’s a rebuttal.

I want to know why you think it isn’t bad, not why you think you’re allowed to do it.

wagesj45 ,
@wagesj45@kbin.run avatar

Because I don't know why it is closed source. Is it a personal project? A private project? A sensitive project? I don't see a moral imperative for any of those to be free and open to all users.

v_krishna ,
@v_krishna@lemmy.ml avatar

All my own OSS stuff I always release MIT licensed because I want to be able to use the libraries in my closed source job.

CosmicTurtle0 ,

Be really careful with this.

Depending on how you contribute to your OSS code, commits you make on company time are considered property of the company. You could, unknowingly, be forcing your code to be closed source if your company ever decides to make a claim for it.

I prefer to keep things bifurcated. I never reuse my own library and if I do, I rewrite it whole cloth.

folkrav ,

“Company time” doesn’t mean much to me, as a remote salaried worker with relatively flexible schedules. Not touching anything but work code from my company machine should be enough, as far as I could understand. Not a lawyer, though.

stinerman ,
@stinerman@midwest.social avatar

It will come down to the laws in your country and how much money you plan to spend on lawyers if your employer wants to force the issue.

grue ,

If you’re the copyright holder, nothing stops you from releasing your work under more than once license. It is not necessary to use permissive licensing; you are perfectly free to release your stuff to the general public with a copyleft license while also granting your company a separate license even with proprietary terms if you want.

__dev ,

Only until you have any other contributor, as you’re then no longer the sole copyright holder. If you still want to work like that you’ll need a CLA.

grue ,

Sure, but I was taking “all my own OSS stuff” at face value.

CapeWearingAeroplane , (edited )

You’re not seeing the whole picture: I’m paid by the government to do research, and in doing that research my group develops several libraries that can benefit not only other research groups, but also industry. We license these libraries under MIT, because otherwise industry would be far more hesitant to integrate our libraries with their proprietary production code.

I’m also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I’m developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus. Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I’m literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.

Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.

TheOubliette ,

If the government is the US (federal), I think you are technically supposed to release your code in the public domain by default. Some people work around this but it’s the default.

But anyways, the example you’ve given is basically that you’re paid with government funds to do work to assist industry. This is fairly similar to the people that do the work for free for industry, only this time it’s basically taxpayersl money subsidizing industry. I’ve seen this many times. There is a whole science/engineering/standards + contractor complex that is basically one big grift, though the individual people writing the code are usually just doing their best.

I’m also an idealist of sorts. The way I see it, I’m developing publicly funded code that can be used by anyone, no strings attached, to boost productivity and make the world a better place. The fact that this gives us publicity and incentivises the industry to collaborate with us is just a plus.

Perhaps it makes the world a better place, perhaps it doesn’t. This part of the industry focuses a lot on identifying a “social good” that they are improving, but the actual impact can be quite different. One person’s climate project is another’s strategic military site selector. One person’s great new standard for transportation is another’s path to monopoly power and the draining of public funds that could have gone to infrastructure. This is the typical way it works. I’m sure there can be exceptions, though.

Anyways, I would recommend taking a skeptical eye to any position that sells you on its positive social impact. That is often a red flag for some kind of NGO industrial complex gig.

Calling it a self-imposed unpaid internship, when I’m literally hired full time to develop this and just happen to have the freedom to be able to give it out for free, is missing the mark.

Well you’re paid so of course it wouldn’t be that.

Also, we develop these libraries primarily for our own in-house use, and see the adoption of the libraries by others as a great way to uncover flaws and improve robustness. Others creating closed-source derivatives does not harm us or anyone else in any way as far as I can see.

Sometimes the industries will open bug reports for their free lunches, yes. A common story in community projects is that they realize they’re doing a lot of support work for companies that aren’t paying them. When they start to get burned out, they put out calls for funding so they can dedicate more time to the project. Sometimes this kind of works but usually the story goes the other way. They don’t get enough money and continue to burn out. You are paid so it’s a bit different, but it’s not those companies paying you, eh?

You aren’t harmed by closed source derivatives because that seems to be the point of your work. Providing government subsidy to private companies that enclose the derivative product and make money for their executives and shareholders off of it.

CapeWearingAeroplane ,

You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.

As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered “industry subsidies”, then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).

We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don’t spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.

In short: I don’t work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren’t interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I’ve noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.

TheOubliette ,

You are almost on point here, but seem to be missing the primary point of my work. I work as a researcher at a university, doing more-or-less fundamental research on topics that are relevant to industry.

This is something I’m very familiar with.

As I wrote: We develop our libraries for in-house use, and release the to the public because we know that they are valuable to the industry. If what I do is to be considered “industry subsidies”, then all of higher education is industry subsidies. (You could make the argument that spending taxpayer money to educate skilled workers is effectively subsidising industry).

This is largely the case, yes. Research universities do the basic research that industry then turns into a product and makes piles of cash from. And you are also correct that subsidizing STEM education is a subsidy for industry. It very specifically is meant to do that. It displaces industry job training and/or the companies paying to send their workers to get a degree. It also has the benefit of increasing overall supply in theur labor market, which helps drive down wages. Companies prefer having a big pool of potential workers they barely have to train.

We respond to issues that are related either to bugs that we need to fix for our own use, or features that we ourselves want. We don’t spend time implementing features others want unless they give us funding for some project that we need to implement it for.

That’s good!

In short: I don’t work for industry, I work in research and education, and the libraries my group develops happen to be of interest to the industry. Most of my co-workers do not publish their code anywhere, because they aren’t interested in spending the time required to turn hacky academic code into a usable library. I do, because I’ve noticed how much time it saves me and my team in the long run to have production-quality libraries that we can build on.

I think your approach is better. I also prefer to write better-quality code, which for me entails thinking more carefully about its structure and interfaces and using best practices like testing and CI.

uis ,

I want to develop plugin for former MIT-licensed software. Now I can’t.

Andromxda ,
@Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

The MIT license guarantees freedom for developers proprietary software conglomerates to use FOSS code in their proprietary products. The GPL guarantees freedom for end users the entire FOSS community, both for users and developers.

pelya ,

Busybox was quickly replaced by BSD-licensed Toybox everywhere for that exact reason.

Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.

This is false. It’s perfectly legal to take GPL-licensed work, modify it, and sell it. As long as the work itself does not reach the general public, you don’t need to release it’s source code to the public (e.g. your work for the military, you take money for your work, and provide source code to them, but not release it publicly).

Adanisi , (edited )
@Adanisi@lemmy.zip avatar

Busybox is very much widely used though?

And how is it false that the GPL makes software remain free? Read the free software definition, it’s about the freedom of users, not the freedom of people who aren’t users (that doesn’t really make sense). Free software isn’t “source code available to general public even if they aren’t users”.

renzev OP ,

I think the confusion here is selling software vs distributing source code. Free software can be sold, as long as you provide the source code and don’t try to stop others from redistributing copies for free. The busybox GPL lawsuits were about companies that redistributed busybox (or software built on top of busybox) without providing the source code. Whether or not they charged money for it isn’t relevant.

pelya ,

It’s false that you cannot sell GPL-licensed work.

Supermariofan67 ,

Ok but I don’t see how that was ever in dispute?

brotundspiele ,

Interesting point for the military: If you build a rocket that contains GPL software, and shoot the rocket towards your enemy, you are obliged to send another rocket containing the source code.

Moorshou ,

This made me chuckle.

Fedizen ,

they’d have to sue you in court to get the second rocket.

mhague ,

Permissive licenses are truer to the spirit of free software but copyleft, while kind of a copout, seems more pragmatic due to corporations. I wouldn’t avoid copyleft licensing on principle or anything but it feels incongruous to want to make something freely available to all but then nitpick over how they use it.

grue ,

Permissive licenses are truer to the spirit of free software

Yeah, which is why the person who popularized the concept of Free Software invented copyleft – oh wait.

“The spirit of Free Software” is freedom for the end user; as such, copyleft is much more truer to it. Remember, the whole thing started with the notion that Xerox shouldn’t be able to stop you from fixing your fucking printer by withholding the source code to it.

mhague ,

That’s what I said. Free licenses are for free software, while copyleft is for “free software.” Copyleft is because corporations like Xerox will act in bad faith, etc. Free licenses are for free software. Copyleft is for Free Software, The Movement. People aren’t cucks for not deigning to make every piece of code they write part of some statement.

grue ,

People aren’t cucks for not deigning to make every piece of code they write part of some statement.

Factually speaking they are, but I’ll concede that sometimes they don’t realize it.

julianh ,

MIT license is useful for a lot of stuff that is traditionally monetized. Game development tools, for example. I don’t think a game engine could become very popular if you had to release your game’s source code for free.

renzev OP ,

That’s a good point! The FSF also developed LGPL for this reason (their particular example was something like OGG that is meant to displace the proprietary (back then) MP3), but you example with game engines is also a good one!

uis ,

libvorbis, yes.

bjorney ,

Literally every library with any traction in any field is MIT licensed.

If the scientific python stack was GPL, then industry would have just kept paying for Matlab licenses

marcos ,

The same way, if the BSD internet stack was GPL, we wouldn’t have an internet at all.

uis ,

Meanwhile nobody uses BSD this day, everyone is on GPLed Linux

marcos ,

Yep, different licenses have different consequences.

Andromxda ,
@Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

For a different reason tho

uis ,

Because companies weren’t sharing modifications under network stack that was originally BSD. I think the only advantage *BSD stack has over Linux is kqueue, which notifies also about amount of avaliable bytes in socket, what epoll doesn’t do.

uis ,

LGPL

woelkchen ,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

LGPL

Depending on the provisions of a console’s SDK, that may be not an option because you may be able to deduct some of the SDK’s working from the released source code and that may violate the NDA.

uis ,

NDAs are cancer

woelkchen ,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

Sure but that attitude doesn’t help game developers looking to make a living selling console games. Godot with its licensing, helped by Unity messing up big time, is about to become the entry level game engine… The engine universities and self-taught game developers will likely use it as learning tool. Godot got a big influx of donations even though it’s under a permissive license. Small indies don’t care to modify the core engine anyway. Most GZDoom games on Steam are living proof of that. Game logic in separate scripts isn’t covered by the interpreter’s license anyway.

uis ,

Godot got a big influx of donations even though it’s under a permissive license.

Many opensource game engines received donations when Unity tried to rape gamedevs.

Game logic in separate scripts isn’t covered by the interpreter’s license anyway.

That’s why I said game engine can be LGPL. Even GPL, if game logic is loaded separately.

woelkchen ,
@woelkchen@lemmy.world avatar

Game engines can’t be LGPL because of console SDK NDAs. At best MPL.

drkt ,
@drkt@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

I can’t afford a lawyer so I have no wishy washy ideals of taking a corporation to court for stealing my work ☺️

possiblylinux127 ,

You can report GPL violations to [email protected]

possiblylinux127 ,

The MIT is still a free software license. It is completely valid to use it from a Foss perspective.

renzev OP ,

That is true

boredsquirrel ,

Permissive License promoters are corporate trolls

pewgar_seemsimandroid ,

Apache and GPL should replace MIT

nossaquesapao ,

What are the advantages of apache over mit?

noahimesaka1873 ,
@noahimesaka1873@lemmy.funami.tech avatar

Patent licensing. Apache explicitly grants the use of patented technology in the code. MIT doesn’t do that so you can be sued for patent violation.

nossaquesapao ,

Thats really interesting, I didn’t know that concept existed in foss licenses.

uis ,

It exists outside foss licenses in countries, where math can be patented.

nossaquesapao ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    uis ,

    natural substances can be patented.

    Oh, right. In USSA you can patent spider silk and apple tree. Complete absurd.

    uis ,

    endsoftwarepatents.org

    pineapplelover ,

    My project is MIT because the upstream project is MIT, could I slap a GPL on there? How would I do that? What would that change?

    TheOubliette ,

    Yes you can. You just change the license that lives with the code.

    What it changes depends on the project, how it’s used, who uses it, etc. It’s really a social question of how people might interact with your project differently.

    nossaquesapao , (edited )

    You can use the gpl license in newer versions of your software, but keep in mind, in order to avoid future misunderstandings, that you can only do that because the upstream project uses the mit license. If the project used a reciprocal license like the gpl, you’d need to stick to it or use a compatible one. You can’t, for example, take a upstream gpl project and use a mit license

    pineapplelover ,

    From what I understand, I can’t replace the license, but I can add on top of it. So it will kinda have both the upstrean’s mit license and my gpl license. I remember looking this up a while back and it was a little confusing.

    nossaquesapao ,

    You can replace in the sense of making new releases on the gpl license. The mit license only requires to keep the original copyright notice. I changed the original comment to avoid this confusion, thanks for pointing that out.

    pmk , (edited )

    People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don’t know what they’re doing. Software can be a gift to the world with no strings attached. A company “taking” your code is never taking it away from you, you still have all the code you wrote. Some people want this. MIT is not an incomplete GPL, it has its own reasons.

    For example, OpenBSD has as a project goal: “We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to.”

    Terevos ,
    @Terevos@lemm.ee avatar

    I don’t get the whole MIT vs GPL rivalry. They both have their uses. If you want to use GPL, go for it. And if you want something like MIT that works too.

    Thankfully both exist because I think we definitely need both.

    DragonTypeWyvern ,

    I don’t get people with cuckold fetishes, so here we are again.

    Hobbes_Dent ,

    Here we are again, in a big circle jerk over GPL. Is that like cucking for other licenses but without sex?

    To use the above example, how is it cucky that a license allows something like OpenSSH to gain broad use?

    Chakravanti ,

    Hey, asshole. Stop insulting cuckold. I can explain even that to a practical sense that isn’t literally evil.

    lemmyvore ,

    People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don’t know what they’re doing.

    Most of them don’t. Lots of people say they use MIT because they want “no restrictions”, or call GPL terms “restrictive”. That’s an instant giveaway that they don’t understand what they’re talking about.

    Theharpyeagle ,

    Indeed, I think it’s just two philosophies that don’t necessarily need to be at odds. Permissive licenses help speed the adoption of languages and libraries, which ultimately feeds into the slowly building momentum of the copyleft projects that use them.

    Andromxda ,
    @Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    The GPL also makes code available for ANY PURPOSE. It just requires people who modify the code to do the same, which is fair.

    pmk ,

    It’s fair, but different people have different ideas about what they want, and in the end it’s the authors right to decide what is fair for their code. An unconditional gift is also fair.

    MeThisGuy ,

    this one?

    https://feddit.nl/pictrs/image/4e9fadc2-26d4-4656-bbe4-3f256cc8a371.jpeg

    NaoPb ,

    I didn’t know there was a mailman living in my computer screen.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •