Copyleft/guide Changeset - 0ca30ccabda3

Changeset - 0ca30ccabda3

Parent rev.

Child rev.

[Not reviewed]

0 0 2

John Sullivan - 20 years ago 2004-08-20 23:26:46
johns@fsf.org

Added new version of book which incorporates Wynne's edits and the SF082400 schedule, and formatting changes.

2 files changed with 4557 insertions and 0 deletions:

GPL-LGPL/fsf-logo.eps

1044

GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex

3513

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)

GPL-LGPL/fsf-logo.eps

➞

Show inline comments

 new file 100644
 %!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0
 %%Creator: GIMP PostScript file plugin V 1.12 by Peter Kirchgessner
 %%Title: /home/corvus/tex/gnu/bulletin-0/fsf-logo.eps
 %%CreationDate: Sat May  4 16:22:29 2002
 %%DocumentData: Clean7Bit
 %%LanguageLevel: 2
 %%Pages: 1
 %%BoundingBox: 14 14 158 68
 %%EndComments
 %%BeginProlog
 % Use own dictionary to avoid conflicts
 dict begin
 %%EndProlog
 %%Page: 1 1
 % Translate for offset
 .173228 14.173228 translate
 % Translate to begin of first scanline
 .000000 53.280001 translate
 .140300 -53.280001 scale
 % Image geometry
 335 8
 % Transformation matrix
 [ 900 0 0 335 0 0 ]
 currentfile /ASCII85Decode filter /RunLengthDecode filter
 %%BeginData:        76958 ASCII Bytes
 image
 ci4OAKMN$d%giXS$k3[Y8<Jm_s+13$s+13$s+13bs3^iZJ0kU2#7UtF%0m.H$Od1J%1"#+s+13$
 s+13$s+13cs4%&`eV5dd"pk_F#7:hF$4.+F#n@7I$jV@`JcC<$JcC<$JcEOcec-CT"UYYC%LNLL
 #n%"F%1*@K#RUnH#ShpjJcC<$JcC<$JcEOcfDc\F(C(<U"qLnC#RCbD$4$tF#n@@L#n.%TJcC<$
 JcC<$JcC<$_#N'e)/TWc#n.%I"qCtI%1*=J$O@1H#7:hH"qFI\s+13$s+13$s+13cs4RDj'F+pS
 #mUnF$jR(H#m^_B%0m:K$OdCI$OMQ=s+13$s+13$s+13cs4[JlAI8_P#7ChE$3gnG#mgqJ%N$!#
 )]B.o$Od8qJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$_#N0h&:+lo#Rh%K#mq"G#n7.bI?jU-!N:X%s+13$s+13$s+13b
 s4dP_$jm=I#6kV?$jd:J'T7PBJcC<$JcC<$JcE"Th#@d,#6tPA%LNFJ#mpnTJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$
 YQ*GY$uQ@[$jm@K%1!:K#uQ9RJcC<$JcC<$JcDnQh>[O2$jZb="UkYD%0SYAs+13$s+13$s+13P
 s5*b`D[H^X$4R7I$jm4rJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$XT./W"q_(L"ptYFrX&WFJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$X8h)W
 $;q6=#7LnF$OI1KJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$WrLuV";VFQ$jch>!XB)[JcC<$JcC<$JcC<$WrM#W$h=Z5
 #RgtH$4[CLDh7q>s+13$s+13$s/Q+WrsFSh#RgtG$4@4H#D)o+s+13$s+13$s/H%VrsE0C#Rq%I
 #mptE0S07Ts+13$s+13$s/H%VrsBtW$4..I$4.(KTRm,os+13$s+13$s/H%WrsG\1#RUhG#R^qG
 )1hg=s+13$s+13$s/>tVrrkb!$OI.HrX&Z38:gels+13$s+13$s/>tVrsBeN#RLbF#mgqGL4TAU
 s+13$s+13$s/>tVrrEN8r!<H4$O2K>s+13$s+13$s+13Ks5O%cJ-u\j$47(G$4.Dts+13$s+13$
 s+13Js5O%[,mjtX$31D3$31oos+13$s+13$s+13Js5O%](^UKU$iUJ7$OIl*s+13$s+13$s+13J
 s5O%]'aY3T$iC>33._*\s+13$s+13$s/5nVs8NB2$4@1J$OR4I:4`Frs+13$s+13$s/5nVrsB,@
 $O[:K$O[7GA:ac3s+13$s+13$s/5nWrrJ5hrX8`5rsJl7%"s33JcC<$JcC<$JcDYJj8T.5$N:G2
 $3:QjJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$VuPfW!Cm@i$3:RqJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$VuPfW!?;IE$2t83&qU(6s+13$
 s+13$s/,hVrrF&Gq$@$>JcC<$JcC<$JcC<$VZ5]V!?;CC$N:>3-%Z)Is+13$s+13$s/,hWrrT,*
 $2Ou0$%[[-JcC<$JcC<$JcDVIjSo:<#RpM9!/c@-JcC<$JcC<$JcDVIjSo?S$3pkDq[*=UdJjNR
 BJC5C'JWL0gZe_HLk9\,(EF>..nWlcRFhHHHs9?E8f\ik9m;>WJcC<$JcC<$JcE@^mf+Hj$lp?+
 *#]n>*=E,[$4-tH#mUnE+@f@01*]Fc7nH3i0)#;P=Wp"::G*\Y4?HpBrsM=)"UbMB#71\D"rlt0
 &F4T[#n%%I#mq%F$O7"H#r137&<&OV$jI.K#RUtJ#7ChJ9#cG^JcC<$JcC<$^&RO#+_1l_#R_"D
 #R^nD$4$nF#R1VC#RUeD$k!7F%1!7H%0d^DrsB\K$k*FO"q(SD2>7%[U_O7A$jm7J#n.+I%g?,*
 rtO3b$OR.K#n$kB$3pqI%h8aM#7jVfrs<*J%LNXO$O6qFrWi];#mpkJ#s3_<JcC<$JcC<$^AmX$
 +X76s#m^eE#RL_C#RUtE#R^tF#S%7K$O@+M#7CtE#n)@ZrsSW2#mLV@$47"G$\.pN%p02E"qCqF%
 @H#mU_AGk1kNq\'GC#mgtE"q(kJ$O.%I#RC_D&./[Tir9fe#7UtF$3pkH#mgqH$jd:I%13CM#
 nL'fs+13$s+13$s1n[&ruh^S%1ELJ$4$nE$OI(E#m^eC%LWLH#mUbE#RCbB%0m)pp\tVW#7LnG$
 pqF$3l=]rsr'9#7CkG"q1qG#n%+H#7L,&),CSH#7LkG#mLkF#m^hF!Y,ME$j[%D$j\'<rr`rB%
 m4=$5![Q"qLhA#7;"N"V(bF#R_)XJcC<$JcC<$JcERdn,FP`#m^e@$O[4L#m^\B#mh.K#R:VA%
 EXM$47(J#RUhC%efo&MZ!hc#RLkD$4;^ert'hn%1EIL$4I:J#RLeC$jo5krt=lF#mq"F$4$hE#
 RgkK-SJ@J$N:>4$k<.A!,:Wr'iYJG#R:\F#RLqE$5+3m,TR3q"q1b9$N^P?)M.p>s+13$s+13ds
 ot20F&!o#m^hC"pGD@#71\@"V(bE$3phB%1<CI$47%K$9.\Y$\/Tf#n@=L#7:nDT_e[#=pYB=#
 n.4L$3pqK#n71H$fUdY%8mE=#RCYC#RLh@&4DNUrsNWO$Od:J$4.(J$'FKP$kW^P#S%1J#RLkC,
 's1e$\oW.$4I+F$4@+F,_>uHs+13$s+13es6ot2*<ucT$jd.F#7q%I#RUqF$47"L#71\@$OR.I#
 (SB#(uXL$:Y=.%1!.F$4I(UqYq.b"q:qH%0d%D$k!FK":GJ>9_JDn<!Ng9&I8dR#7(Pnq#:[s#
 mh(J$4$tE$WHBk$sEoD$4$qE!t5DA#?(?s$4[@I$4@:K#n@:%JcC<$JcC<$JcEXfn,FNbKSkP?M
 @"HI23%r#RC_C#RgkFAW_n+LPU\>LPLM<p&>@<#RC_C$OR+G#uCEt"s+'V$OI(HrX&l:"pk\C#
 mughrsY#A$OR(G"ptY@$VBRUrs9eT#R^tI$4R4_m/I)m$iUG:$OR4M#S0`)rsDR/#n.%D$jm:JK
 X&Rs+13$s+13fs5j7f+USA^$4I.J#7(S!rrO)F$2k52#ltBhqu77-"pYPE#RLkE#mptE$Od7I*
 ;9C>$4@.G$3ptG#m_@>rs<BJ#7:kJ#m^eWmJdPo#RUkF$4@(I"rO<3rsFVi#mUbA$jm@J0S07Ts
 +13$s+13fs5j7f)[m)Z$jd=G$O@R6rrJVqrX&T3rWrT/Mu<Sf]F5,R#mLhF"U>JD%LiRI$OBN%r
 r`oB$4.+>#m(>>'D)51>m1TB"q(bH$PVt.$YK\P$jd4I#RgqFc1M#C\HrZO#7LhE$O7Z&s+13$s
 +13$s24lursBVL$47.F#7V%F)s[G(N!f@e!=ab]rsRrq#mq(I#R1bG<oO#W"/&KtDu'D@q[X)D"
 q1eE$OI24o)B#8$474K$O[4K([qA3C((IY"UbSE#RD-[oD]05$jR4J$O@(I$l"9mJcC<$JcC<$_
 uJiu"!%^R$iUP:#71\VlMgm8%/C21$\nW[#W`>"#m^kI"qL)$$9/A"#RUhF"pkPMnc&nf$O@"E#
 LhD)"@P5@L<GG$4.+I#Rh#uo)B&Q#S.+F$4R1H%iBltJcC<$JcC<$_uJiu$5!XQ#R:\F"UYZIl
 Mglc#PeZ,%HIEe#R^nE$k!=E(sqaO$W@B@"qCqG"q;"HJaraH*!?]Z$O@%G#7g;($Zl[_%1EUM#
 mptCKCSsK?jR,I$jdCP%0Ri*s+13$s+13$s24lursB&<$jm=L#S.4GMX(3A3VWm\(]F@=3sc6&#
 mq&9mf*Vf$OI1K"q1kK"qC&$#n@=M$4%"C$jmpCrsBJH$j@"H%0m:N+7T:;9aV75#nI7H#nU[!s
 +13$s+13$s24lurr`i>$4I:@#m(A?MX(3B&dnUErsJ`3!)EOn#E]?!$O@+F1%,&LKa.tm$4@@J#
 m^o9nG`hB$3phD#n@:K#<25R$7Q2f#n%.K#Rq.On,E_6$3^hG"ptnK$AX34JcC<$JcC<$_uJm!"
 gS:?#mq+>$31J!rre,d#RLh9$NCD4;?$S#(CUZZ$4I<1mf*YM$Od4I#RChF#m]5TrsObp#RChH#
 mUkC$t&W+!,MN>rsJr9$Od<#nG`K>rWrf;$4I@J$4Encs+13$s+13$s24m!rsFPg$4.%G$4@.I)
 !_,$M>dbm$4-tE$47&Rs8Pt&$OI+H%J&re$W@?>$3gtF$3pnC1%>2N4UMQ+#RCb@%gNQ&oD].+$
 OR7I$OR1G$T%8O$6'9W$k!@K$j[7`JcC<$JcC<$JcEUek5PdF$O[@R$4$nB"s<.1'SZr%$O6qF#
 mgqD>6"UB$O$hD%"msI$4I4I$k*CL#n$kMn,E_)$46tG$O71G$6Sm>$X<lA$4%(G$O[FJF7B2;<
 !3^@#RgtI#n%'ZJcC<$JcC<$JcEUek5Pd*$47.F#n%4N"<?_,'7^Gr$j[1J#RLkFI/e0l#7:kD'
 ^bo.:^RR;#R^nA$4.0dnc&dC'aG-R%/pP8%L<Hmo`#<r%1EOO#n..J#RD[ErsN<D$4@.H#S.=J$
 n6c-JcC<$JcC<$_>iZt$7,ue$471H#R_&<lMhN/"pt_F$OI(H$4!7(#R^nF#7ZIUrsAu;#71bD$
 k3CJ9C`#jgC+Au"q1kF%0m.FNV!/X.0p.e#S.(J$4I<!nc'"s#7:hF#n.1J#R_#`JcC<$JcC<$J
 cERdk5Pc-$OR+J#RChI#)VXF!EKU-$4R:I$k!:L_gMdu#RLi.mJdQK$4R@N#R^kA$OKl(rsKPJ#
 Rq+G#Rh"I$m>0A$bQWN$O6tB$k!=H-1V!D<t#TE#RLqF$jR.I*eF?Bs+13$s+13cs5s=g*!Hi\#
 n.1I#S,;Jrt.^1#RLeE$4@%F,l\Pb$OI51m/I2'#mghErX&]5$4-5&%9!lG$k3OL%L3=L$4ln&r
 sLRf$O.%I#n7+G%@m"h!'gDf#7^tH#RLnH<.Y(#s+13$s+13bs5s=g)@HiW%L<FN#S-Fjrt-F\$
 OI+J$OR+J-Z97r%1*@,mJdPh"pteI$jR%H":Iusrse9-#S%4K#n.%D$jd.Qnc&q"%L3@L#RUbG#
 TE=7%>bl-%1ipV#n%%K$48bDs+13$s+13$s1\NrrsG#!$OR:L$OI.M'^>W/(^UQY#RUhF%1!IO%
 LE@I:[J)g%1*CF#mh"G#Rq(3rs_s6%L<@I$OI+J$4@.Tnc&uR%L!=K$Od=M#RO?"rs_R+$4.+H#
 RLkG#7(\OJcC<$JcC<$JcEF`kPkmB#n..I$k*CM#TN%.!Y#JEr!NE0":#>?#n62#$[i<e$4$tG#
 m^kB-MRNN[S7PF$jR+G#RUnE%13>;nG`kT$OI(F#mq%H#n)"PrrdmA&d\mC$O-qG#mh"G<e::%s
 +13$s+13_s6'ChEs`0]%1!4I$4.[:rr^@P#mpP;r<WT8"ptc>m/IG@"Ut\D#R(VC$3ttSrt']6#
 mq"G$OR:O%LWCN#R>G?rsP)!$4I%G%1!1I#mpD,&9]$!#RLkI#m:\C$O%%C(kR>=JcC<$JcC<$]
 Dq'o$:kO3$jm:H$O@/6lMgs>$O$t<$2Y&2%14]QrsK#;$O-kE%Kd.G#3Pj`&s7bk#RgtI$4$tG#
 RL_D%1=nQn,EcG%0m:K#mLeG#7NNfrt1Aj$jmFN%0d1H$4@(H$4I/0JcC<$JcC<$JcE:\kPkl2$
 @+D$jm:J%Bo's",I9o#5JT.#R_$gli/+9#mq(I#mq%J#n4WLMH1T-$O[4L"UbVB#mh%L$4@4_O
 mW/m+p&5[#n.(G#n.)<s+H>3&ISpP#n-tF#Rq1J#7V(F$VATos+13$s+13$s1&*lrs9VS#n%(L#
 mh"Gl2Lj@"q(e;$iC>5$j[O3rtbqK$4%"G$j?nD$P3^P$3^hE#n$hE#mgM;":,;>'T)/U+;bIm#
 RgqD$jm7F%29!R#n7%F$jd4I#mUbC%1EOK*eo7GJcC<$JcC<$[f>Oj"VV4I$4-t:$31=qrrY(d$
 ?b?r<`W5$3ar*ruZ+d$OR%D$NpqE$3^tG$O@%J":PJH#mgqK#R^qrB]8:W+.3HD$4I7H%1*@K$
 O[+I$47.I#7(bH#RUqK#RVSGN.M"[s+13$s+13Ws60IidKg-e$OdCM$4.()rrg[U#7Ln9$N:>4$
 <HHl*$,Fj$4R7J%L!+H#mU\A"q_%I%1*7I$OI+L?M3O^**s![#R:P@%1*FG$47%I#mpnK$O6tG#
 n%%G)N'+GJcC<$JcC<$Z2a%f$A]&t$3ptF#RLhHlMh!C$k*CKq$@'1SEg+l*XE/\$4.(F$4."E$
 ."I"pkYB#n%%O-?nSO!?;CE$47.J":Y\I$OI7I%/pS=#7V(K$kcEmJcC<$JcC<$JcDqRkl2!=#
 mq+J%13LO&.7_&%>YAu$4I:G$4@4M#7<<PrsBYL$k!@H$4.%K#lY22#lb57#o4UYDW:[!)@?fX$
 t8B#m^nF$4.(L"q1bQ)EU`8JcC<$JcC<$JcDhOkl1uq#7CeH#mq(J#;#0?%>G2u$jd:L$jm:F%
 @mSrs/u<$47.J#mq+?#6kSD$Q14>SDO8H)[cQNr<`i>#7(PA$P+M3LOoJVs+13$s+13Js60Ii:
 (%L8%L<FK%1.%>rsVs8$4%"D$4."G$jfbprstM'$jd4J$47(I$k69qK!sD5!$(tEr!ET5%P3$cM
 LkeYs+13$s+13Fs60Ii:CR^<$4.(I$OVRPrrO/H$iUG9$4$tD%1;>!$]5B&$47(H$O[.H(Y8Td$
 iUJ1$3CG@n:CUjs+13$s+13Cs60Ii5m[l+#mgqI#Rc@OrsKYM#S.1L$471I#ZBmd$]#,r$OdCO$
 q"D*S18i$2Y)0$%`,-s+13$s+13Bs60Ii/-u[k$4.(I#n;[TrraAK#R_"<#lt5BkPkpF$4$tF$
 k<RP#S0\]rr<N+$31D2$A&5.s+13$s+13Bs60Ii*=N;^$OR7J$4al:rrri<%gN@H$2t;4:?VW]M
 $s_!#R_%>$3:Eif)G^Xr<iK0!=KTms+13$s+13$s.B>Trs9AH#mptI#mpqZl2U_h#7:hI$4.%EK
 BN7BL^FFs$4@+K$jm8`f)GjZ$4@4Kr<WK1*.e-@s+13$s+13Bs69OaLCF.h"UbSE$4%sBs8NE3#
 _(I$jR.KLZe[FM@'_"$jI+J%0m8kf)PaXrsAr9$47%L$6+QrJcC<$JcC<$TE"0U$AJll%LNUR$
 I5llMh7B#mh+I$4I.K$O;IMrsOYm$3q(J$4-tF%#<F6!#PV@"pbPF$3pnWJcC<$JcC<$JcDABl
 M*6&I8aM$P*LL#`@pI$\Siq$j[1H#RUhJLZ\UD%h8mQ%1*IL$P%g?rsBPM$k!CJ$4I4I)1hg=s
 +13$s+13Bs69Oj,Q\A_$4$tH#Rg=jrsOMg$O7(I#nI:K%IiN[$5j*W"q1hH%135!f)H(7#RLeG$
 O@(H$P\0lJcC<$JcC<$TE"0U#o=!W"UkhI"q)C7rsFJg"q1hE#7UkE)<Ll*:^II:#7ChE$jms7r
 r??srsE'?$jd7L$4."G%-.?fdXhFLs+13$s+13as6BUkR0a0/$jm:L%1*s;rsDR/#n.(G%0R.K0
 BN3@KFS:t#mgqH$4Ig6rrQ(&)tj4=L'\1q#mgtH$O@$pk5PLA%2FHoJcC<$JcC<$^AmKu$AAlp#
 n.1L$4$n[l2M)/#n%"G$4..I#(u%;$G6WO$4R4I$4%"Jk5PQW#n.)BpAYN!%g*.I#n.+I$OV[Or
 rY4d#onNrJcC<$JcC<$^]3U!$=aAN#mq"J#mq)7l2M)+$j@(I$O[1I$\maB$471K#mq%I$OR1qk
 l1iH$4@+G#Zg[!$9&G#$O@+G$4@&(kPk]%#7CkG&qU(6s+13$s+13cs6BUk*!clY$O@"I$41P6r
 sOSm#RCkH$Od:I$ARXA$5![P$4[:I$4$tRl2M#8$O@(I$4I0)p\tSV$OdIN$47%G#mokr#gF"j$
 jmCN#<%/5JcC<$JcC<$_>ig#$5<jV$4@4K$OR;slMh6L#RUqE#RUkH$4Zglrs)m=$4R7O$jutB!
 Hl?$&f>u#n77K#7O?"rsB;C$jd=M#R^tF;X=>h8IZ.8$4[CN%VL@mJcC<$JcC<$_>ij$$^D),$
 O@(I#mq%GN9^EMHjC&d$Om=M"UZ%)rsBDK$jm1C%L34G/a`QE9*u":#mgqF$9@bY$<IH=$O@(H#
 R_1LmJdO?'abBX#n@@Q$XJ>`JcC<$JcC<$_#Na#$=4#H$k!CJ#RUkNl2LiS#n-t9$NgSA$68(*$
 W@6:#Rq.J#7^tH=7H4sMA?U+$O@.M%L3a>rsB)>$OR:L$OI%F3UctSJJ\_%#7LtG$Oq[eJcC<$J
 cC<$^AmO!$<7E?#n.1J$k3J=l2M)-"UkbH"pkMA#\W,r$U+n*#n-qE#7(S=5P+m_E@hY)#R^qH$
 jQr<nc&tq#RUnF#m_"F#m`3UrsX?H((1ET%M&dN$5;HNs+13$s+13$s1\O!rrY%b#R:88!t>YDL
 ["gA)[llW$N:D7$3uFHrse9#":>AB#m^nE%0[K/q#:f%:(@I9$4@:J$jR(G>OVS#%gidP$j[.J$
 j[4ZGk_4HEYA`f#71hF$3phI'S6:8s+13$s+13_s6K[f(^g]Y$iUG5#S$%u$_.G0#RUkG#7LqGL
 Z&1=<XT3B$4$hC#R^P;'i0^BL5UkH>o3_R#RgtE$4.+I$P.7Fs!#\n#7:eD$4$nF%0@"UJW#2:K
 nt:.'+G3R#R_"K$jdCP0S07Ts+13$s+13^s6TamPm[p*$k!@L$4J'ArsOVk#n%%H$4@+I$Ba6G*
 utXl$O7+G#m^hD#R:\E#RLhE#RgtD$jd7I%0d7J)!h2EaU&7Z$O$nF#RLkC$O6qI"q(\F$3gkF#
 mptF#7CnF<e::%s+13$s+13]s6TamK+&(o$OdCK%1.[OrsOPe#R^kE#R_"H$fg+D#SIFN$O@+C$
 OH5.!t,AC=6]_e7L0;,rX/W2!"/N.q[39.!>'j6s+13$s+13$s1/0rrr>pq#mLeG#7L_CpZ_\b;
 $ma?#R^qF#6tRjrs([n#RCbG#mp).!XfslkPkU*&./=CrWrQ3q$I$-r!<BAB7^)6s+13$s+13Zs
 ]goN"HI*$j[1G$O@Dpre^9''8_O#Ll$tDKban"#71_E#n.4M^to"pW!ik>!=];&#QYE/jo5H<#
 mgqGrWrQ3q$I'.r<`K2!/uL/JcE[g!UK=UruB&B]SWhNQ(XP'Ll%%GMi*XtR>?`VMj96VLp-7Gr
 rN)hJcGNF&=ie#n<o9XZAja0[Yfp#Ko,_`m>(Lk!/(9(!ePrRrIk*$+ae*.?$V'GC.)H&Kn!8M6
 u#V.I=cEPLMDHD?]'PkKS>-WK^"3dL\Z]#LB*(tL]<,&L\Zc%L\Z]#LBE6is8VKdrs8W4"ptSB%
 m.Gq[<*)!"8c5rsKJI#mLbC#mptE$O$nA&K;K''c7eb)#tNN(]P?O(]P?P(]P6Z)&4)/(`*Va#
 m^nF#O`!*#7MCb)Aj>1)Z:QR)?:ZS)#P6V'c@`$*Z,1hr<WH0pB^g,rX&N1"r8*q(E")+qATAOr
 u1hRpDWfH/fc#R,W-ti.OZu73@#Un.MsR8>p1%0.QL0^05Ed3;eL8jF+n^NItNH-JU29Md>%1I!
 /^T1#`F]3hMI)OM21VYnVR'sq2"a"nqR'r&VPsjLk'eu92'ME/l+eX+rh[#*VgZP)X\I`)]'D0)
 &`kq()I`'((CNZ&/#T^$4ICM#mq%J$46Y<*<ul\$O@+K#RCeJ%1*IY$lBE]$Q'Wq%h]fk&/lM`)
 #bEQ)#G3;)YkBK*U+R>)t=jB)'0_7(`F8('c7c''cIes$l9Th#RM+M"q1_H#7(\C$i(.l$3(>6#
 R:Y3$NCDR#7:_@#mUV>$OR.F$j6qD#mLbD#RU_A#7CqG"pk[Q$2Fqu$2Fqm#m1MRs8VKd"V1qI$
 OdLD#Qb;C#5ef,$MOl&$4[:K#mghD$3pkH!t#5B$2k//#lk>0$i^S5$3(A4#nI@L#mptD$3phC%
 gWIK#7Bu-#R:eF#R1_B$OZb;!=B/4#lP&;"qLtG$j[.K$47.KrX&W5oa1U)#RL_E#7V%E%L`4Bm
 WRo*=2oU#R:eB#RLb@#71Y@$4."H"q:eG"q(YB"q(\7$4R7I$46nD#mptD#RUkEnI#'ufa7]cq
 [*T:#7h1H$j["Hfa@N]q$ZEo!soM?%fQh@#6YA@#RUkCq?d0-i<fMirsB#9$4.(J#R:\Dr<`K2"
 :#8>#mpP9!"&W3*X`5Z$4-tE$OI+H#R:P<$jm4E%1EIL#mh(E$Om=Jp^$m+r<W0)!"/W1rX.$Yi
 <]r##RC_G#n%(D$jd1H%K6V9#m^bD#Q>&7#n%(H$4."&$2Fo0#m^h9#lt;<q[!3.!s])=$iLG4#
 SdXO#mgkE#n%%F#RLkH#6kP@#n7%Eq$Qp(nHu3$!ZM+=mJdP'$OR1G#n%(L#QkM4$24cC#RLhF#
 mgqH$3pkF#R^tG#R^nC$4I1Gq[3?2rX&T3p'Cp.$4$tG"q1D;"U#)<#7Ut/#mUhB#7V%D%12Y6r
 sK)>%gE7G#mptDq$?d'":5DB$Ocn?!Xf2:rX/T3q?m0-mg:HL#RUnD$4%(I%1ELL$jm4J"UG;>#
 (_C$O7.G%0m1E$j[.G$OI(ErX&`8$4$q-$2Fr(#k85s$MOl+$N:>:$4.%F#7:kEkm@.mq$?Hrq
 ?ZQtrs9)@"UbSE$P!:I"qChGq$Ha%oEk=#(CLQW#RV(H#m^eF$j[+H$4-tE$O[4G$2t83$2t51#
 p'?[%13CJ#RC_D#R_(J$4@+N!sK,=$4-tF$3^YA#k89%$2Y).$2k5,$2Fr($0_fU#pBN[$jm:F#
 RCbG#RgtB#7UnE$k!CJ%1!:F$OI%G#mgkCrX&Q2km7M##RCbF$Mt/.$31M6#TX-V$OI1H$OI%G#
 VC#RUnE$3geG"UYP=$jd1Fo*Opmkm@:qr<`9,rsAW2k6^qkp^%!?s8VNe$e5Ug%0d.F$4-qF#
 Oi'"#l=o=$4.(H$4."D$NpbE$j."Gr<`E0q$Hj(%g`XM#RLhF#7:YE$O6tB$LnE-$4@1F#RLkEq
 $@$.rX&N1#QkPC$O7%G$jln?rWrQ3pBUa*r!3N9"q(hG$4$t;$KDFF$OI+E$jm7G#mq"G#RChE$
 R7I%1*7G$j?qB#n%"G$4$tE#m^hE$4$nD#RCe5$2Fr($2Fqe#lk>3#lk>3#mUeB#n%"E$OZ\9q
 $QWuq$Qp(q$R-.q[3!&r<NE2$2t;4%/pJ9#S.1I$4.+9$2Fr*$24]*$Mt,B$3^nD$4-kB$O[7H#
 RLkG#R^t;#Up&e#RLhF#mgqH$4I7J#RLeE#RLhD#n%"F#RUYG$4I+G#R:_D#n%%Hp^-g)p^-p*Z
 jHO6*XW/Y#7CkG#7:b@#m^nG#7CeB"pkPD"pkPA#R:YBr<VEirs8T1!!r?+*s`/\$jm:I#RLbC$
 j[4I$4@1H#7(VC#mghC$4@1H#lY.k$Mb#($FgBD(]XO'rsV^2$3^eC$jR+F&K);Y)#4s`(`*u*)
 &X8,()Ri&)\j2-'H@i(()n"e(]>0P(E"+h)#kKL(Cq>t(`=)+(Ddi((D[c'(`)WX#o+<l)AO2+)
 &F+f)#G-J(^:ln()7c%)uCEQ()Ie\)#Y6W(`!o(()If((E*/grYPPNrtkAGq%jMX(D@Z'(Ddr,(
 D[f)(`*)f'c%W%(D[i('H%Z)'c.]'(E+/+)&3nc(BbQm(D[k((]P?K(Btco()e&*)=\O=(toeu)
 #Y6V(`=2,)&=&-)Z:HP(ASd<)"e^@(`"#((`F2.'c7]'(`+&+()[l*(D[c()#>'K((q?#(DRc('
 c%T%(`!o*(E")-)?(BX)&F/,'c7c')A`&`r>>PNq\])E!#Y5Bq&%0h*YoV0(`!o*(Dmr,(E"&+(
 D[f()AO,.()n&+)&=#(kns(2!uMgk)>Y0m(E"),()e&,(`+)*)&=#*(E"&.(Dn),()Il)(E!u*)
 #P3L)#5!4)#5!,)#5!<)#5!D(]tI%s8VQf!9=%a"ptVA#mghFJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$RfDjV$@N<k$
 O7(I#R1`7JcC<$JcC<$JcC<$RfDjV#n@:J$47%F#n%)ks+13$s+13$s+13<s7$$qGmjre#R:eD$
 YAs+13$s+13$s+13<s7$$q)[HiZ#7UeD#mkU&s+13$s+13$s+13<s7-*rcj^6f#R_(K$4%&ks
 +13$s+13$s+13;s7-*r@Kd2J$jR"F"q=Uas+13$s+13$s+13;s760sfF//m#mgtI#R_N$s+13$s
 +13$s+13:s763i$4%%J#7V"E$44.ls+13$s+13$s+13:s7?6t:(IR8$k*IL$O[Gqs+13$s+13$s
 +139s7?6t$jR+L#RLbB&-m<.s+13$s+13$s+139s7H<u:^dU:#mUqK$Na:Ys+13$s+13$s+138s
 QC!L^XS"$O@+F"pY`ks+13$s+13$s+137s7ZI#bmOgc$OI7L#S%,oJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$PlLIW$
 `+u#RUkF"UkY[JcC<$JcC<$JcC<$PQ1CW$X!lD$k!@K#n%+JMLkeYs+13$s+13$s-*KXrsNEH$
 %(G$4@%H%aBS)JcC<$JcC<$JcCo5q>UhC"q1bC#n7+D%1"kCs+13$s+13$s+134s8)a'bn1Hi%
 gi[K$O[7mJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$OT54X$X!iC#nI=H$4@1I-(k2A>Tjq#$k!F@$OI7L)&O>0(IDg!W
 ;d$kKQSOW)u1?T+;QSXKqO"sJcC<$JcC<$oDeag$dB+f$k3OJ%LEIL*hrZ<TQM[h%1)q@r<iQ2$
 jm:J#n.1J$4%4[-[W)t%+:#0(`3Yg$O7%F#mpP;rWrf5$jR7L+FU;As1eR6f_b[a\c;Vjk2H8uW
 ;lmfQ1"\P^p_7ULk1uZs8IcaK7%uuKRn;UJp2ZeH\-3?l2LnW</lTdq1T$/Jq]#7Kne=]!:p$e!
 /=2"nM]n`f0'+rs^_"+;l+U/0GcO/gLmc_>aNe)ZC]U)XeUN(`aY:)CSR"KtREdR=tBil%Jkdq
 Jj(M#[MRrsZ[]"UkbE$4I=M#7Zrors>uB$471K#mghCr!E]9#RLnE$OR.IrX8u:%1<J=LsWU1%
 #ep/#7LnH"pkYB#n-P8$j[4G$jd(G#R;Mu`pghE2C]U`-7L)Z+uW+s-neb,+rj!M8PD>j1dXYfC
 Iqu/5up$C7P$PW;D'@h4\-\R==Y:H0,tXOli.-1',DZ-*r-cP)ZLcH)(67=()[`()&Eu%(CM&m&
 />ii#nIUV%L`mV%1`aP%LNj_#mq1L#Rq@1rt?FX$jd=K$4.1G"UGVD%0m.F%"IOA!s]/?#Pe]3#
 RUqI#7(isg]%gH$kEp`'H%8j',(Wa'F>"Jd/OSQ#m^bF"q(\C#R^eC$>.-S!#Xr,%giRH#R^qK#
 ^)BU;RNPkbs*=2HJkm@.mq$@-/%%R@srsN!<"qh1H$jR1G"s'N>$=sbO#mgtF$47%Jq[3</&
 I\pP#mgqE#mgtF#mq4H$P5>1rssH3#R^qC$j[4H$OI(I#m^54%0m:L#n..I#mpnE$5@*irs0/@#
 (bG$3^Y5#mCM=#m^hCrWs_T":YSB#n7"C$3^b?#R^eB$3pnA$4$tD#7LqD$O.+B<9sPf;@3[8#
 mU23q[3?2q$Qp(rX&r;#m^hC$4$nF#lY2K$4$tD#R^nD$4$nE#m^hE#RLbD$jm:J'^G]3ILlkl#
 mptF"UbbF"pkVA$4R1`l2Li^$jd:9#mLeE#71_?8DF.U*!?]W#R:VE#mq+I#6kVCMp_P8N=,t$#
 LnC%1!1G$4-qP_>aKQkm8".#R^qG#71YE":GSC"UkVB&4jUWrrEiDq$Pd]!t5M9s8W*,_[?b[#
 V(H$OI(ZV>h.I*=)rZ$jd4J#mgqD$47(G$N:>4$46\=&.AmO$477H%1<FM$OI1P(XTtt&Ypo`$
 I.J$j[7K#RUnF#RCh;$3(A1#n@:J#mpqF#mgtF$4%%I<lP(G*=*&[#mLbE$4.";$4@+H$jd4F$
 I7J#RUJ;#7(\E$OR1G%/pP5$N:A2$3phA$4%%G$W?<j"AoF3#R^>5!!qir-jg1d#7UkE$O@(H#
 m^hE"pbPB$4-tG#m^qH#7:eC#mgkF#mCYE#oW"-!XT)Ar<Wi?#m^hE#mUhD$4.%&rr<E##mUeB#
 RUhE#oVOu&<$i'#n.%J"pbJ@#7:bD$5V"g&2OS!#7C_C#m^kF#7CeD#h[#o!>u7D$3(A$#o*dQ$
 pnF#mpnG#7(PC#RUnC%0m\Mao;A_#k88d$2Fo1#93^C%0(ne$OR1J$O@+I#umc$!F$$4$3:G@q
 $Hd&#mgqH$OR.G$4@7?$3^kF$4.,&_uBg1*=<)J$K29n$Qr-OaSu;X#R]#er<`Q2EU3W*<!^/Dr
 sJc4rs8W2!#k,%"]Ga9#7Ch4#m:MB#75tGrrO8N$LnE&e_U6,.LZRX#mCSC#R^oOdJj=7$OI.=$
 N:>:$4$tD$3gl;_Z'TSq$Q'e#RCbE#m^_S7rQWO!?MRC$J5Xd&c_n2rs;I.&-iaO%0m6eV>gc=#
 _D%LWO;$24c4#mq"I$4."G$N(88$l]]a#t`,9"^29A#7V+;$K29o$3pqGD9;eZ)$pZ!$2t85#
 n)RTrrH%([0ZgLl2Lt?#m_%J"q(/4":>>>$m"U4!f[KlnHf1;h>[Ne#n$J7":GG?$jY/Z")%oH$
 Mt,7#RLkF#RU_O_Z'TSfa.rn#m^hG$3^eF'$^FW*!lBJfEhWe'EA+3rs';E%1<XP#[XA-#WE"q$
 OI(E#7^,.r!NE0rsJ]4":YnJ#7nfR"rdjY#RU\>q$Q$d"UGD>#o_16rr<tb$2b,1M!P'A;[9uB!
 !rE-!#k)$"UbV?$OR18#m:M=%0[.'rrEfBnHf17hZ!\,%g`U;#m(P>-.)Yo*XiA_q[!N8#m^nE$
 @*$_uB]TfEhlj$4-qE$3peE$<YXS!$(hBed2Bls8W&t";qXW#YUun#qH;j#m^hE$O[7/$3(A4$
 Y)0$i^P:#7:eGB#joW3XuB(":PPE$i(.g#mUhF#7UnG$TuZ5!ZD@Ndg?$]!s]2AId@"7;?sT9!
 #4Ys"VqOS#7Ch5#mChG"UkXdl2LcE"Rud!#LMB."!7dS$i()3#RLeCER=^f$jR+Hq[!N6#mUkH"
 pk`"_uB]Tfa/)r#mgqE#n%(H"UYMZEmamf*")ZOr!M*`!t#Fms8;lu0F:XQrsBML#mL\C$O@"G#
 O`!!$NCG4$31J5$NCJ<$4.%H#n#5(rs9SL#7ChD$4.%Efa.rh#S..F%1*=Tda%jo)@6\u$2k23"
 `EZ+!E09;$3(A0#lke*rrcF.%1!46#mCJ>$O@/il2Ld,%.FQ'<T*l[S.,`3#l+c0$O?tDo$RIA;
 [Ed;#mq%<#mgkF$4$tG#RLd,`;]fUfEhum#71bE#RCeH$3pkC=47*L+:%iOr<h3a!sf4[s82frJ
 Y`;R;?[F7$47"F%h&aPlNmOuq[<E2":5DC%2I"b$YB\S#n$tE%L*:J%+kjm$j?tG"U>A=(kp<9!
 #s;lrsAi9$41nArr?$2$3(A4$2t22#n6"s!Xf2?pB_!2#RL\F+6ie*j7!?U$p*>H"Bu'=$4$A5!
 t#>B&((@U$NCG3$NCD>#R^kF#RCeH#mtalrr<u5$K29m#S%7A#RLeF#6kJA$4$rke,KG"%/^G2$
 J,RbM>s1I$muDl$jm.G#mC\H#mfi'!X];BrX8Z3rs8]7L!'E(9*Ph2"pYPA$O@(K#MBCk$j6kF"
 q(kG#n7.ad/O(ad0]g[!t,GAB']Hu<=0)I#lk>/#lkn,rrc.+"q1e5#mLh>%LNCIQ0J;K*:X=9#
 S>qo"<\![#RpM8!s])=;pkUKHk-Mg$4?Y:#m^\A$k!7F#6d3-rr<tj#nR=K#6tSD$O6qF#7UbB#
 mXP]rrFALd0Tm\$h41grs`0;#7:VA$O@+I#mpqFlO!LsrsSc4!Xf5Bb5Vnf#mghC$4."E#RL_B%
 G;'f$471H$O7"D$3^qH6dbo6)USlk$3LM@$<$3i"BGm;#me$I!"A&j!qHU(pB_$0$O@"E$ARgF!
 ,M$0!/BJ4"<.UQ$4$>4!Xf8/dJj@d$4."G$Mt,9#Rh"D$O@1K$k^GX!#jMsrsB8B$OI"C#RUkC#
 n7+G#n243rrF5MrX/W2rs76`!XS#iTDo*.#mLnG$4?V9(((<T#m^kG#mgqE$P=6r(`F>0)@HrYr
 X&o;#Rh(G$4.,=bPqi-#7CbD$4.%Hr<`H1"pbSA#RUbDrX'/B#Rq+K&KMf,'bV&d$3pn:#QYA=r
 Wr]8#7CeFq$I'.!sf2>9%*_?)@H$ArsAu:$OI%E$OI+,$3(;1#m1SB$!$<k"^)-7$OI+/#lk>3#
 n%(H#R^qF$4%"F#mg>5#6kS?$OI+H#jDWr$ARaD"!%UT#l+c2$3phC#mW*Irs7Wl#7:eG#7Ch4#
 lt<Gir914#n71K#l"],$8p62"T8W4$OH5.!=7H!rrsGL#mq%I$MFc;$4%=Z&IAdN$jd4I"q(YA$
 N:><$O6tE"pkVE"q124!=07errF/Gq$Qp(%gWLK$4-tD#mptE#mq"G#Pe`%#QbCts.KAr\HrWQ"
 :>G1#n$tK"q1hF$4."^JqNn!#J>pn'b:]\$iUJ7$Omcmrs92<$OI.H#7ChEr<iQ2%gNLJ%1!:N#
 kSA%N0#<K)5KYJ:/gY#Rh(C$jm:I#7:_D#PeZ1$4."H$4%HsrrF#Fnd5='#71S@%1!1E$LnE&$
 i:86$O7.L:[A#a<XK<A#n-50q?[?3#mpqG#n$G6!=T>7#m(><$Mb"t$36(KrrZ%(#R^A6#6tVF"
 Uk_EM!=pE)@QrW#m^hEq$@*1#92\&"X"'X#mC\3#m(J=JC4B"Gmau_%.OW*"pZ<jrrO,G$2t;*#
 m(G<9)ei.RA>tDS:c#@()d\h#R^qC$k!=K$3geC#RL54!X],hf)Gah$i(/*#nICJ#RUb@#RUeC$
 -tD$4Q_9p^.'/MuTIM"ssK^#7V%Hr!E?0#Rq"F$OI.F:9sEi#]1dn$4-tG$\6J$$5EmU#mUhB#
 R^qFr<iQ2$O[.F"UPJ?$O[tgK_#-O3Y2l1#mUbF#RCYC#l+c3#Rq%G#7L`7eGfOf$M"N&$3h"G#
 RUtH#j;Ts$O0c"rrcL/$OI40#lk81#mgtJ#7ChF#RUkFp^%02#7:YQ(DReO)$(>tkPkW^":,D1#
 mLV@#7:YBJ*Ht<9*PY0%1NRJq$@-/%L1;?rriZ<#7CnEp^$p.d/O4j"U5D@n-K.(#`Qe'"<@dT$
 ?b=!"/N.!XK3eo`#2UM*MFV#RL_BrX&]5$3p83!sK)=L=cG+8IkP'q$@Q:%:"@/FadqBH%Lg,K
 nP-TL%pB(IK0>?rrri<#mh"F$N(5.$3U_D#="17rs#N(3Y;Q%_p/2h5R.Z'#n77K%0m1Gr<iQ2#
 R:_D$OR:N1Wf%a$I(:9$O@%F$4R4Jq$@<7#mUeI#7V#Oec,Xg$M"N'$3s.\LkCJ;K802UnV.+%L
 SUh"G;;^LPG>T%>fmuMM[=TK+eS!#mpt3#m(>;+3FNb^_-tZq$@97#mU\E$j8]Vrrs)B$3geD$
 Mau1#71Z5jSoBc$O6qA$MOi,;UPLEM>dh_$OH8/!sf8@;TA_=.L?Cgr<WH2p^$s+K^o'NJi"/H$
 k!=E$jd4G$MOi-$lR[s!C?qb$Mau/#9D_%U&P?P#RUkI$O@.<$N185$OR&?kPkQ-)pSBe<s]6=$
 OdCA#QbA@$N1;1$3^\D#S01nkl1lY%Km%C$3gk5#mgeC&I8UK#7ClOf)Gah$M"N'$35j]rrsGM#
 RUqF#l"]."q:npaSu;X#S$S9#6YGC#mUeD([1l')@-]W#m^e2#m(2:($,B!&.&OL$4.+9#lt:(d
 Jj@q#mpkA$LnE*"q1Y>OiRJ(1C4?pr<WH2q$@*-%#"'K#Zh39$OI1I#n$D5!t#>>=kN`T>7LB8q
 $@'+*T-mjrrr`8%1E=H$2Y)/#m1PB$luVQ%:0>H#n@1C#R_(I$OR7>$2t86$j[5^jo5N`%1<II$
 jcY8#n.%D#mgtJ"pH.#rrF#Fnd5='!/.BP#9O3V#n%%G$Mau1$4-heaSu9?#5AK1$jZtE$O6tDM
 !=pD7gfV2$O@.9#m:JD#RZCLrrrc=#R:_D"o/H)&CLL^TEk]3#7^t.#m:YC#n1Xjrr=eD#m(M>K
 C/[C8IG_2#mgt5#m:S=$jKM[rrIBOq$Qm'!#jbpUAkLV#mpkF%1ERMq$I03#8=BB%fHb?$OI+H$
 k*:H$O7"Gr<`K2!X0!*iVs$U":PPCq$@B5$O?nJ#m:YE#X6l?!?)=9$3(>4LT:@W*=)oW$2t;-#
 m1D<%R8#6!#>88rs/f8$4-tG#p\^7"c!Eh$4-t4#m:S>#RXJlrs+Jj#mgkF$4HY9!$9Pf#!!&!#
 tMBnHf=%$4$h`a8Z8k#RLhFoEbO*K^A^DA.AhL#RUkGp^-s-!=0+drrHm?q$Qp(!='\'s.]N"C
 ^^LW#RL_C#mpG8!XB,kZ2Y;0#R^nF$4I%E$OR4K#mpP;rs8]552ZAB+p\S_q$@E9#7:kB$4@.H#
 RXYcrrF#Fnd5='!/ITS"rdgT#R:\Ep^-s-!='UbrrEuFq$@<4#7CeE$3pkFkl1eo#mgkE#knW,$
 jJQNrrshV#mpnD#P\T*I*qru$3phA$jm70#mCYA#n%!+aSuA]#RLhFrWrQ1q$@*0"b#_:">pMp#
 n-D4!s]/@LY;\-L%l#M#lkt&s.]Mn;u?t+#mq"F#mpM:!XT35ZMt)/$jd1K#5JQ2$3pqE$O[4I*
 Sp`&:C%:5#R1SC#mCb8$2t87$O@%Hmb.U?)t4.7$APS\"<7[R#n$>3!Xo2Sa8ZHY$4@.I#RLhD$
 ht#.Id-k9;%!X9$OHP7":#A@#SZA#%i>]\$OI%E#m^eC$46tF):AHh^^^SX#Rh"FnHf@,#7CeFJ
 &qWi+Rf[<#:f'>#(6^`"qCnEq$@35#R(VB;q_0SKa%hi$4?b=rX/T1rsAc5)W1RhrrZ"&#n$V;!
 X]5?r!EN4#Rt"Ers3TV"UYP@%13I@$3(>;"q1eE%L<>8g]%LJ#RLqG#m:_5$3(>8"qCqI2VJ*1)
 tF=7$35g\rra;I#mgt4#m1G;%6)<,#S.4I#7_(H$jcY8!='t9rrnYq$3g_Bq$I',!so>CK'<4GB
 +5(O$OI+I#n%.J#7LqDA^UM_,6SA\$O6tHnHfC*$O@+H#O';0!$^q>rsAaDlMh#+#n@(E$i()4#
 M(L"X2S!"GdEl#n$V;rX/T1rsAc5)W1RhrrGq&rX/W2q?m6/rs/U%Zi:4M#n@4M#7(&3"q(\C"
 :GVUg&D<j"U>JE#mUeBq?[00%K6S5$CTWJ!#tP:r!EFYWrE&>rWrQ3p'Cg.#7)curs1Og%0d%C$
 OI(6#m(A:c0>60(^giJ#mC\A$4-q_kl2#/#6tSC#RLhC$3^e9#QP^hrs4kr%L`XO#R^k,#mLSA#
 m^eG;p#%>..ITF#6]_Frrmr\#7V%Gq$@34#n$tK&)$sc:^7:5$M+Q()W1RhrrG7irX8]4!=K86$
 i^S6#m(GC6F?asjp;8"$4@18$3^eC$4mFUf`)!2&H2n:#n%(Iq$@3/#nIFO52-#:)tjU7$35g\r
 r=)1#m1GA"rtY_#[RcF%1<FL":Y)4!Xf<Jl2Lld$3LV@q$@34#n$tI#3l.!_[-VV$OR+F$3pbE#
 m^kG2:;F/<Y#E>$3pkEn-K:.#RCbC#8>5Z!&!dJ!Y#BXl2Lkq#7:eBq$@66#71YB#l33S!*Sas!
 #jbpUAk6P$N:G4$31J0$3CY='t!uI:(.@5$j[1K$4?_<rsAo9$O@"ILXuJ.&IAdJ$hal1%0m+E#
 tWhN!#tV<q?d4WWrE&>nHf7(#9Lnb#+5r("ptSBpB^m+#tsO_"7$=(%/1&3$4@(I#@$Kn!_Nk.r
 !E?0"U>D?#R=AXrrS,d#lY26$4@"FnHfF)$O7"H"UJV\rr=D9#m(>8EU!K+.1-=f$Mb#.#lb86#
 RlUErrIl_n-K(5huBGN!D<au$N:>5$4.%9$3LG?$duK`$AAfm$4@(F$jd7Jr<`E0!XT-9ec,kM#
 mq%I#7Lt9#mLhA$4@(F&)7*a)tXI7$35g\rr=,=#lk8)#m(;?.E2;l'atET$OI4Fq$@*.$QSC1!
 t,A@$MXo2#RUkB#nuV(&/tl^#RCbE#m^hG"q(YB$\m+0"b-sd%0d(:#lk5##mU_C#mptG$W"qF!
 $:Y:rsJgJl2Ll;%1!=Hp^%*2#R1VCLYDb/LBm_`!"/E+!#jbpUAk<n#mgt;#m(G?$2Y&3$jd;6[
 f6UN$4-qG#mgtIq$I33#n@3irs7?e$4$kH"pt_6#mLe@$4.(FFklus)tF=7$35g\rr=,=#lk8*#
 m1P?#TLb_#<rD##RUbC$i()2$j?j=l2LiO":be6#mCS@$4%"FlMgqq#mq"<$N155$j7+I$dnt\6
 jF),$4I7G%1)J1#7:bE!tPVA0?X:p-LhBD#R4o*rrcR4$3pq6#mLYB$O@(Ee_:$)M$aUg#m:SA#
 mq%<$3(>5#o__$UAk3lr!EQ5$47(Gr<iN1!t#>B*k;4XJdMbm#7(VB$47.Kr<iQ4rX&X+e,KT($
 -tD$iUM2#mU\A$3gkD$T[#B!#tD6!=FR]rrF/JrWrQ1pB^p-$4.Whrrru=$jR(F#l+c/#RUrHl
 Li`%1!=7#m:J@"V-CUrt(.q$OI.J$4."G$OI(J"Ue/Srs9)@#m^qC$O[4Gn-K=)$O?qD#mc4-r
 r=V>#lt9Fl2Llk$4@+Hq$@34"pkVB%,(X^KF&"b$3(A4$3(A2$3(>5#o__$UAkO:$j[1J#R:hG$
 Y&6#mUhH#7A8WrsLgn$O[:K#mgkC$4?b=rsJc6!=BUirra/D$jI(9$3(A0$3(@frr=#0$2k22L
 t7W.L$4e"q:23!X8uX`;^#^$OI(I":Y)4!t#;?%-dco'+G3Qp^%-1$4.%E$<$6j!`TO5q$@0/$
 jR1IdJj9##7^G7"9])=#RKl*!%H+k"=aZ`#n$;2!=E)rrrcC5"q(\3#mLYD#6t\BNS=C5L'mGW!
 =0V$s.]N!L'\4n$4mFL%/C57$k!IK$4t=jrrElAr<iK0q$I03##s"M"GdBh$jc_:rsJW0rsAaCh
 >[Hon-K+&L8t7Y.1$7d$4-hCp^%!,$6d@f#%doE#mh%Ep^%$0"pKkKrrWQ1$jcY8#7LkD$4%"E+
 "/)[-WF#m:Y@#mE!0rr=29#mUeF#7!Cm#R^).!=\,7rraq[#mgt3$3(82B'K<u)[QrY%/C25#
 R1YG#o_Ls!JUsO#lt;MhuBDM#7UqD"pkYC$2=l-"p>AA$3ro1rrIQRr!NB/q[3?0!='UjrrWZ7$
 OHV9rsJW0rsA`Ah>[Homg/uKWrE8D#71YC#m^/1!=Bjbrrio=$jI%Gq$@0.%LWOpli.&u#R_(9#
 mU_B#7C_E$O6"u".Ti+$Mb#.#QbG?Oja73LBe.nq$@95#R1\:rtYn1#lt;\bl7el#RLeEoa([,#
 'oM6!g*lroa(a."pbMPg&D)-$LnE'#TDV#U&PEA#7V(I$4$kD$N1;2$4$qK$O@(K$4:"NrrF,Hr
 !NB/q[3?0!=Lg3rrO5K#l4l-$Mt/0$31Okrr=#,#lo^[rs'nU#RUhD$jZJ4!#riU"Vh4L#mLe5#
 m:Y@#7_70rrX&F$4$>4#R:eE$O6qD#qYNE"#L>i#P\T,$4.WurrX;R$Ocb:#6kMA&-)YZ%.OW)#
 SkS`">0rd#n$>3!Xf64lMh#g#R:\F#l+c1#7:hF#[#d[!JUsN#lkn$s.TH!K+/(i%0m7K$4?_<r
 sB)A"UPYE$OI(I&W"4%!Xf8?r<iK0rX&W3r<`Q7F3jjgK*_khq[*90q[*90!<tpJrr=#0$2k22L
 t7Y3XQ-##mUhDpB^j+*5hd[-40qb$4?P7":,GA$h!E^"mZR("V1t8#ltA=rWrW2$5r=4"N(`R#
 n-P8!t#8:3n"$2N<far#l+c3$j[/;s8Tt?nHf7(#dV_T"?Qkq#n$;2!=0h6rs%<c$k*CK$i()0$
 OH_<f`(u,$Le?%)W1Rfrrs&D"q:nE$Mau9$O7(D%L<@J#S%&*_>aUe#S%.=$2Y)/$3(>6$OGV7s
 cp#$Mt/0$3:PKhZ!QpoEkF&!/@NR!\O]dr<WH0p^-s+!$/uW"b6pb$471:#mC\C#7:]mmJd>8"
 qV(G#P\T2"pkS@$OR1M`pj!2.L-=f#PeZ.$4R;\df0GF$4I+Gq$@--#n2sqrr<Dq#ltB9c2Ro*#
 RLeEoEbO&5O8=R@0[,C$jm:8#m1P=#pIt$!JUsN#lkn$s.KAq1'nBr$O-;3%1!7L"q:nD$k*FK$
 E9>rrXYT"qCM;oa1[:c2RiA$jc_:rsJW0rsAc5'Ai`h)tF=7$35g\rs(:^%1!4I$4-A4!=0[^r
 ra,A$3pq6#mCJA#RCidmJd>-$O-tE$i()8$OR7K#6tVC#upEo";M1O$4-G6!XK)>dJj=o"q1bGq
 $@*2#TNaB!#Y54!XK#Sc2Rnn#RLeEoa([,#$(!h"q_1I#mU_Eq$@0.$4I56f`(u,$Le?%)W1Rfr
 s$^Q$47(H#lY/1$N:>A$OR1J#mUkE$4$tE$k6phrrNK9$2b//$2Y)0#llO$rr@fL$3(A0$3(A4#
 lrN5rr=#,#lo^[rs)m<#R^qE#n$J7!sf5>)oDUX;@*[:#l+c2$jI+G#S#h_rr[ZT#n$A4#m^kB#
 n."E$3hL>rr`c;$3pq6#m(G>+k$AokQ_M$%LDk:!XK$SrVlk3nHf:)#7H72rrabV#mgt3#m(G=+
 (6FrL\m$4.%G$Mau2%0d+DK%U)(L'mDV!#jbpTDo08"UteH#n%+JoEkI'rs8`6$Y%0V"c*Hm#
 R_";#mq"I#R:bG$4.(FKZsGr%e9r+$3CVDL>W"3*!l$?!/RZT#C[$d$4.%E$i(,/$3:DP_Z'^t#
 :_2#mLSA#n.%GM!t?J5R.W("q(_,#lt8<nc&s@#RgqG#mptE#mpS<!XT4,df0hM"qCqE$4%(H$
 pkC#RM4Brs&r>$O.%I#7L>6!sf2>,0p2k1'e0m$M=],$3rHVrrKb@q$@E;#7(YC#RUhD$49hcr
 r@fQ$N1;0$Mt,1#Sc1rTDo(C%1!:F%K-Y.$2=i/$OfnRrrd*B$k!F?$2t8:#n..G$j[+RbPqT@#
 kJB&$3CG>J`$J.*!l$?!/.BP#>bX2$4@+G#l"]-$4.]grrXVR$4Q_:"q:bB#RUi0n,ES2"Ut\G#
 U,/!Y#FQo)Atj#71eF#7(VCrX&T1!=BLfrso\K":5D?$3UP@$4@+G#Yt9s#?(g7$O-kC#P\T-#
 llci4,*#RLeEoa([)$;U*j"5Z`["o/H3#7CeB$OI(G#R`WCrr@fQ$N1;0$Mk&/']8q^rs!u\$
 R=K$2k5.$2"W-$OR5Yb5VTF$O-tHrX&K0#71bG$474N)9`$[N:I;T$3CM>1#N!3*!l$?!)igr"
 MjU.s0hh)!T'dSrrg@?nF5)Irs([k$j[.F$jcV7!X]5R_>aRh%0ZG4#6tSH!t,PAMt-fPM$aIr#
 M?nHf7(##k*m$5j0W#7:eC$4@.GrWrT03R[p=<<Nd;#m^eD#n@4H#mUhEd/*bH$3ptG$Od=:#
 m:YA#m_Qtrrb@g#mgt3#m(A=.J*QDrDjI4#mLk7#mghD$O6kB#mq%Gec,W(rX/T1r<iE.*=`5h(
 )Rl$'+u#n&eGZk%1Ws['+>Zk&IT3e&.Ko^s.0/l7gfP*r<`H1r!E</!"&N0"UPGD#7DQqrrbh$"
 :GM5$2t8:%LEFM#mg_Zb5VGMo*PF(!Xf5Qhu<]s#k/-<#T"Bk%L`pd$P!d`&.oWe%1j'_$OmFQ$
 cBm^#%e/H#n%%DpB^m.#ope]!n%;_p^%04"UGJA":KbMrs'eV#mUhC$4?8/!=0_;rsrH>%1*@G#
 mgqG#RCbF$4>2\rsB);$4$nF"pk\A$Ocq?q>UXJ"U5;?$4?S8":#2="qo8^"?$Ml#n$>3&I8dbs
 UfGd/Cc[s5X-X+<(gi#lkA-$3(>;#Rh"G$O6t^ec,W(rX/T1r<iE."pPJB$jd1DrX';E$4."H#
 R^_@#RpqE$4-nF"pYtAs.')j$k!L@$2Y)-$2Y&7#mq(J$O.6Bc2Rr!#RV"F$N(51$3pbA#R_"E%
 ;j8f!!r0&rsAf8#9D_%!?;C7#oO3Y#R:\B%0m+F"pkbF"UPG>$O-tG$OI-f_uBjL$4I.DrX/E,!
 X]2Q_#FHJ#R^A6#7:bC$O[7G+n>R;'+,-Q$47(Dn-K+"$M49.(CUWV$OI1I$4-tE$47(Zdf0Su"
 ptYD#R^nHrWr]7#R^q_q>UVH%h/jN#l"]0#RLkB%Fri*"@3;"#n$>3rs'/B)%@/m$P3gc&IB*^"
 pYGB#mg52#RUbB#6YG?$l.:l!/CI[r<`E0q["8P!so8:$k*FK$OR.E#mpkC$4.%D$4$kD#mL_G)
 #O?&rrEK5q[*-,r<WN4#mpP;#RLhG$O7%G#oLtf"q_+L#n%(Ir<Wc;$OI7N$47(KMTYr!$hF]($
 :G:hu<]s#k/-<"UPPA$3ghF#RV"J"q1tI$OI.H#RCYC%-GJ-#<i+q$4.(K"SiB($3:DP_#FEl$
 MXo4$4.%E#m^nDo)Au+$jR(E$O[7Jn-K.($!m6(#IY-K#7CeE#Q4r3$4-tC<7:dX2@B`r$O@(F#
 mU_D"q(eDLA:cP":5DA$4HY9rsJo6$ij;Srrb[p#mgt3$3(AJ$3ghC#RUbA#R_%I$4$qF$3peD$
 $A5#7(YC$jd1E+Og>jLAhPY$2k5.#os9\#RLqF$O7"D#7CnF#n$tH#R^hH$47"F#n.%Uqu</c!
 JM-]$3(A0#lk>3$2t87#n%%F%fQ_8$RLVVrs$@I$OI%J$N1;1$3ptD#7(\H#cl,J!!i*%rsAi6$
 qjJrrF)Fn-K7'$OR.J$iUGD$O@"G#6bPC"UkSF#RUkGNPkc$HOpDi$3g_Cp^%!/#TUY[!eh*hq
 $@00#mghBrWrSHoD]%&!t5JC$3gb)#m1A>"Vp_1")S>K%K$M;#RLhE#RLlndf0gk#Rq(J#m^nG#
 m^hD%0@RErra>G$47(6#mCM?":P\Od/O5"#RLeEoa)E>#mq(J#n7(J#n$qD$NphE#71bC"UPS4#
 mLV?$j$n?&CUR\L'e4nr<iQ2rsJW0rs0PN#m^bC$jd:L#mgtH#R^nE#n$qB#mq"D#RD@Gs-irgB
 *e&7!"/Z2rsB/@#RgtE$jdCN$O\\ie,KQ.%13CMr!E</"pYGB#n%"Xao;>Zo*PC'!XT3ii;Wft#
 k/-+$3gbC#7(YC#lY/?#mq%F#R^nG"V1nJ$c^*a#D`Tk$O.(H#l"]-$4.]errFMTp^%04#71YC#
 u6rs=Yk%0m.G#7CkGnHf=+#RL`jpAYXt#RLeE#R^qG#mgqF#Rh?ort&rQ#RLhA$O@%E$O@(H"
 qGbLrr?7%$3(A.#mL_A$jHtE=4.$N8I,V/$M=]@$jI(E$4@%G#mL_D#RUkD#7LnD$jm77#mCYB#
 Rgu;dJj<'$4.%;$NCG4$Mau4#71_F#RUk8#nI:K$4.%G$O@%G#m^tF$5ra@RK!P+%0d.F$3pqHr
 X&f6#R^kE$N1;2$N:A2$N(83&(CO^isc;%#7C85"q(bD#mq%Xao;>Xo*PF(!sf;>LuA:7*!ci+$
 k22$,Z]EL'e1lrX/E,!t#>@)Sc:YFUAE\$jd4F$jZS7!#kM0!*Ak#rs/Z4#RgD6!"/]2!*]*r%
 il&`$OI(G#RCbE#7LkC;pt[G*;KmF#7LeB$O@UBrra)B$4@49#mCYB#R:YRdJj>E#RLhFh$FJp$
 O7+D$OI.G$jd2'd/O*%p'Tgd"UGMB$OR^Is-Wft>71ZE#mghD$OR+J%0R%G$N1;2$31D2$N(86#
 mqN%ec,WXr!<?1q[!91#lP)2$Q@.e!#G/4rsAi:#RbS/rrO/G$JGde$4t)S"b?sf$OR.2#lkpZr
 s>J,$O@"E%13CLq$@',RJ$R\3XGEc":>MB$4-G6"9o,>#<;GW%LiXL$jm:J#RLhC$3pbHdf0?'#
 JQ0$j7"I"pe*!rrcU7#m1S1$2t86#RM"3df0GH#mgqGh$FGu":>AB$4-tE"UnGXrrIo_q$I'.i
 X#_p#R^nUqu;u^$V(I/$4@+F$OI(F#lY20$2P#.$O-nB$Od=N7FqJCM$XIn$4.(:#mUeF$k*IK$
 %%d!$:_<rX&]5$WQ'a![%aUfa.Wg_Z'jd!sf2>#71e3#lkpYrrtXn$4-qA$MOi-$U"+^!"8Q.#
 (YD$O-qA%/C24$OR.E)u'@?:'V%3$3phD#RUhCrWrR'df0=h$Mau4"q(bB$ju\"rrWT9$jcY8#
 :bD$O@%C<RUmJ8.#5%rs8Z4i<]ep%13CJ"pkVC:sK"?M"h;V$KDEr$4$nE"r[=<Q2_;L&d\mO%
 LECJ#n%%H$N1;.$N1>;%L<FK%gWUYfDc)1%1*7G#mq%<$3(>4$iUG6#R_Tnrr>"L$3(>7#n..hi
 ;Wj*$4,;k!=HW[rre#`$k!FA#keQ))nu=X:^%15$jR.K#PeZ,#7L8*!CI.e#m:J;#n%+7#mCP@#
 RUp>q#:L9$4@.F#lY,7$4$qD$Oal#rr<E##m:V>$jI=8rrY=c#mg>5#7:_A$O@(F*Rarj:'h46$
 N:>3$Ju-i"o\f0$lJrerrIo^pBomd":,;A#o`^@PlD00'*eaL%13@J#m^kFr<`B/r!Nf6$k*=I%
 !:Qdb4X*L^aUs#RLhFr<`K2"pkM?$OI(Uao;>ro*PF(!so;><T*lY-OL.8$2k23%%P68!.t1Tr
 s8Z4p^%$0#mhNars3oW%1!=L#mq%8#m(G=DYO/4)@cuI#mUnC-:n=J$4$A5"U>>>#mWfls8E?)#
 lb8;#mpqF#RgtEdf0B($k2q<"UbVB#RjN#rrZC4#RgA5"U>A@#R^serr>dH#mLYC#RUnDFis^bM
 $`tb!XT2@j9bhnrs/W0%f?9hrsHCV"ptYB%0m:K$N1;*$471J#R_%O$4I.Rq:biPM$XCq#mpS<r
 sAW2"UPME#RDBkrr=#0$3(A4#lt<=i;Wj%#n#Mqr!EH4YJ^AFK*_kl$OI.Iq$@-1#mhN`rs&l=$
 geA#7C54!=1%Irr[3F#7C85#6kV:rtG\C%/C25$4."C$QAj@#W<%s#RCbE#mgM;!s]5=):JNd,
 ROYL#mCP>$jm?(oD\lN#n?V8#7:_D#mUhD3n+*/7K!Pm#i>pm$3geG"U\nbrrIuapBgj,j9Yqr#
 mgtKqu;cX#Y,(/$O7(F$4?_<pBh9:"V1tF#n%7O$4cR[rr@rU#ltD?rX/Z3rX&i9#RLhD$ld=g!
 #bA7rsAi6$421>rrO5J$eu'f$3:I'_uBso#mptF#7(S.#lkpXrs(4\$O@(I#m^84rsJf5q#:F8$
 pt7#mU\Vs8Ot_%KuS6!X8o=rWiLYqYpU6#RgV<":,5=$4He=!*dqP"7?O&%f$D6$4@.D)tEq0,
 R4PI#mCYB#m^hRe,KDDq?[-/i<]\r#RUeD"qSlV!K.?[$3(@n#m:SA#mq%:s,[0\EtA6VrX/T1p
 'M-9#7ChF#7:hH$4ttl"cWou"q1e5$NCG4$3CM@&'=hO&b?>/$NCD5%>*O<!$9_u!=jk%rs+8c#
 m^kF$OZS6!#rWO#)!Bi$3pkEp^%$.$OYG[s8E?*#PeZ2$ZZ4H<!rm;q$@66#mUbD"ss0H"F:I_$
 -V;#RUqF$4$tF$/X/2"&B71#l+c0$O$kF?h+-tL'S1^#m^eC#RChD$40kbrr>mp$N:A3$K29l#
 CG:!XK0/bPqU%$i(/0$3(@o#mCYB$4.%Hqu;ZU%7pm6#RCeH#R^qF$4.%0$3U_B$4*ijrrWoA$
 O-G7rsJc6#7LqI#RLkJLW]Vs'(Q>3$4%%JL#Dt4/I2^R#oNsY%13FP$k*IM$j[7N#S@CR$3q.L$
 k!Dt_uBdn#R^,/!=BgZrrrl9$O@"A$MXo/#RZ.Zrs`fO$47(H#m^e@$O@%Irr3%U$jcM4!t#;?$
 N'i)6OF4s#m:M@#mj>Trrf,&$4-t5$3(>5"WHk0!uVFP$iUJ7$OI18#lkmnrrc1*#mq%4#n@:J$
 .LW&-raW$O-tC$Le?%=j6mHM@'4gr<`K2q[!H6#>UD6LP#;Tp4`X&K8KL*N;j6<(^CHW"qLkE$
 O6,."UPGC$4.3trra5I#7V%<$2t8:#7(VC$j6rpb5VGQnHf7)#7BAg!@J6D#oF2._i0SCMMS'eL
 \<M#GSsKo+7&[YTURrrRr]$LnE&)SH(SBab4O$j[:;#m1M>"Xa*G%4__k#RLhF#R_"G#7;:Gr
 rNf?%/:,5#R:VC$O;OdrrO&C$i()3$O7"FMUVS.ILQSk%f$D5"q1o"n,EW<$4.(I$OI+5#m(G9R
 FV<?;$dO9$M=]9$3_0ms4..[c2Y(O"UYM@nHf1&bl7^!#l+f,$Mt,1":sDiMZ3rW&d\gO$O-nDn
 HoI,$3ptJ#Zfd]"=sca$4$D6rsAr>$4.(J%qWo`!"8T/rs8K.!X]>Khu<`u#RBl+!$eND!f%$go
 EbU,#mhN_rs#8,#Rq+H#5JQ-$4%"PqYq!<#6tPD$3^kE"q:nD-2miD6MCck#7M(J"U5HMr;Qg/$
 QY8!='"\rra/G$O@%6#m1M>$=WE'$0V[%$4.%G#7Ch5#m(G>8(IVB;$dO9$M+Q()Yj=6.gldS#
 lmH>rrIo`q$I'.q[!94#N,Q<rs-dg$jd.K":P/8oa(g1%1*IK%h.:o##5X:#RLhFr!<W9#RUqH#
 CYWbPqS>n-K.%#oMS"![%gXnHf1>WrE-U#R^,/!=BgYrrjGN"pk_Gq$@0/$j?o;r;R4R%0m1G"
 pkPB#n$tB%/g,,PmI`l#lk>3#6PGD"X3jE"&T@2#5JQ-#7:i@df0FX#n%"HpB^g,mJdD3#7:_A$
 ..8#ltDMec,bL#mgqGoa([)$les@!Y,A@nHf7&$"V?]",REn$Mt/0$Mt,1#RfPiL]7N`#mpnI#
 lP,&#mLSB$4..K-f4k*:^.(2r<iQ2rX&l=#R:_C$ORZmrrIuboa1R(!Xo;^hu<a."pXT(!$80?!
 f%$gnd,=(*4u4Q9a(t6pB^s-%13LYr;R3O!"0,A#n.1F$4@+K)#O=5*;0[B$OI.E$5EI="!7^R$
 Mau0#7C[_rrmoZ$O@4Jq$@*0#Uf$>#Z_6>$O7%E#RC/3!XB&<ec,bL#mgqGoa([,#9*@:!JUmL#
 m(G>(s`-^M?s(drsA]4q[!9-%c@;?rrPh$#l"`%$4%(D#Rq+H$joAZrrd*G$OI(;$31D2$4$qF$
 RIO"q70Krr>gf$2Y&2";?.>rrPOs$h4N')lio>LBn7Z#m1M@#T:8S"`+VR#R^q6#mC_?#RUp3r
 r3J=$j[.D#m^b>%13FJ#?q$)!+GX/%giUN#mpnE$Ae`^EsW-_#l+c.%1!?irrj&F":b_Cq$I'.!
 *>F#_NTj#mUkF$4Q_:!t,MB5h>r<;$dO9$M=],"q)OHrrG+cn-K.#$o$$-!LX5f$Mt,1$jbbjK
 `;*k%LDk:q$IB3%LE:L$OI+Hhu<h8#RCYHr!E?0#RLkG#7:eG$=D$W!?MO?$2b,3$O>>ArrP[r#
 Or*#*if5ALBn7Z#m1M@#T:5R":,;B#R^A6"UbVE#maB,rs^@Z%0d4M#R^tJ!t,>Qq>UF/pB_99#
 RUhC$6]BK)@?]R$i()1#72F"rs!u[#R^tB%/C21"rln.#;$8j#mpnA#l"]-"q(girrc1*#mq%4#
 m(J>)>=(2HOB9L":>GB$#n8k!PAg7$Mk&/#2fH4rr<o5$24c5$jm@M#R^tI$W5j^"Ha&u$jQV9r
 X&o>#7CqG#7LkWbl7\P$M4Z($NCLjrrP^s%.OW(*if5ALBn7W#lkpUrrOJR#knW/#7CbE#uLX$%
 T<Y#RL_B#RL_D#7<Bbrr=tO#n74H$46tD&c_kL#RLeCq$@*0#$'.P"<%LR#7C23"pu&nMMHh?p
 kJg&%#0RiLkV6d$O6qD#n$A4!X]31fDbtN#mgqGoa([*#p&^=!#"f.":,A>#U[pu!64pDr<`K2q
 [!9/%,_)9rs=Mi$47(D%1!=Lq[*W9$O[:J$47.J%c@9k+9`5[$OR1Hr<iK0r!EG\cMmrE#R^A6#
 mpqE$jm4I#mqR,rrQg=$i()7$4-tE$47(G)lio>LBn7Z$3(83#p$VW"Fgmd$4-G6"U>GB#6c7Lr
 s9#<$jd%D#mgqErWrRJq>U_0#mpqE$4-tDq$@W?NW0=j$jR(H":5G?$j?tB*7OomG7+`_#RgtGd
 Tp_#7CbNfDbkK$2t;3$3(A-#lt;Oo`#.-#RCYD#mpt6#mCSA#mpoYdJj3ap^6d&!".W`JcGcM"
 q_+F&HN:Jq?d91$Om"ArX/`4Ol66@D[m!N$N:A2$N1;0$3:H9cMmqX%L;e9#mptH#m^kE#RM@)r
 rR!G"o/H)$N:A3$NCD4)lio>LBn7Z$3(>5"r"QI!u2(H$i()E$3^\E%0hajY6tO?$471J#m^nC%
 Dk)rs"ks$O@(G$MFc;-:%kG#71eE%LE=G$jm=MJ(+E#9aM.6#gN_[#7:_F$AmF8!Ds1&$N:>3$
 MXo.#TWL:#K[8Z#RCbD%JU80#6G;<&((=V$i(/)#lk=is+14LrrWf<"q156$O[:L$k!CL$O[7IJ
 DgG.N=5^mr<`K2!"&T2r<WK57F1u9OUD@!q$@?7#R^nD$O@+H,2W>"6gk<])lio>LBn7Z#m1D>#
 oU;R"+CR_$MauC$4.%D#7+K4:C.C8$47%D#m^kK!?h.:"rRXO$O7"EpB_?8$O-nD$j6e?#n%+F#
 R:U_rs'VQ#n%%F$4,#c"UGG>%g,_^rrGt'rX/W2!"/K-!=0\:rrt1^%0m4G#Pe]+#QtA<$3j>Sr
 r<Aq$3:G?huA9-rr3+<$4%+Jq[390#Rh(J$O[:K&1$05"!%[U$N184$4.%;$N(21):/<b2[0Zup
 ^%01#n%"G#n%C%rrHF3n-K(6WrE-U#R^/0!XK#L\c2bk#Rq%6#mq%G#n%.P8J;46$iUG:$OI:K"
 q8<Ars)O1$k*@J#n$J7&-i[O$jR"D$4I1J"UPSG#U.[s#j)I%#RUkE$4,#c"UtSC!t-X3rrc1*#
 mq%=#lk>-#lt;OoD]#>"q:eD#n$J7#7:bE"q(bCL=6)%%/C8*#lk=is+14KrrQ70$2P#.$OI4L$
 .K$4R:\hu<b3$OHY:!X]5?r<iK0rsJg1d/X+P!=];.#mLVC#RUnD+Pm&!ILHGN#lkpErrRr]$
 M"K($6QeX!Z)%Lq$@`?$OI.D#71_D$4.(H#mU_C#RLbVpAY>V#6tSB$jub9&./RE$jd+E$O7"G#
 RgtD$WPUT#!iS(#RUhFcNsaZ$47.H$eYI];$dO9o*GF'*:j+53Wo`o%g_t;#6tVA$4@%E*7Oogd
 L#^Vp^$p-huA9-r;Qe5#Pe`*$i^S6$NpbC$4Q.UrrEf>r<`K2rsAW2r<WN2#n#)["EOtT#R^A6#
 RCeD$4%%H%[GlM!c\GQnHf17WrE-U#R^/0!X],G\GlUi$4HM5#Rh"J#RCbA$46\=rs/Z8#X\4a"
 tp2e#mptEq$@T?#n$qD$4-nC$3^hD#7LlqeGfjP$k!=J$3pnC$IK.a$4$hC$O7j.rr>pc#lt;On
 c&_'$jd7Gq$@<4$3^_?$O[5AeGfR($2Fr'#lk=is+14IrrO/H$i151$iUJ;$OR1J$4DdLrrbFj$
 .%;$N(5/$NCJ7$9-E5!ZD.Mp'La+":5>@#qt*6!d=bUq$@$.rX&T3rs8ZEWrE-U#R^21!s]/?)
 S#eKI1-AV#nmRN$3pnE#7:\C#n%"D#7(VE$6&R:#($mg#R:YCq$@Q9$47"G#mUkE$47.E%0R3jr
 s:"X$3pnD#mgkEd0U$`$4@.E$4Z4Qrr>pc#lt;Onc&`N"q1bEq$@?9#7CnH#7LeANR[t.&,?S-#
 lk=is+14IrrY:j$Och=rsK)>#mq%I#RLhJhZ!V0#Pnf*$2b,3#7D'krrdHO$OI(5#mUeA$OR4G#
 ZBIX!b)NAq$@<6#m^hE$4."XWrE-U#R^21!t#>?*4Z"MTEkr"$3(>7#7:bErWrW3#n$Y;!XB#Po
 `#-!"pkVC#mg>5%giRI$jHtE#RUhE#RUkGJ^j]+q[*W9#RUbC#n"ra"U#;A#mZ.;rr>pc#lt;On
 G`S%#mgt7#mgkF#RUkD#7CkSeGfLSnHo:'$K(l7s82ftD[QmL$31J4$3U_F$k!FA$f:mikR%V(#
 mgtI#mgJ9r<`Z9#mpuQeGf[[#mptH#Pe]+$O$tH"q:lhh#@A'o*P@&!#qs<!f%$gp^-j*!Xf>Q\
 ,Q^_"ptSC"pkVFn-K1%%0g/1rr`W9#7_".#mU_D#71_D$/sD6!dFtYq$ADU#RChE#R^nF$4$qE#
 RUkD#Rq"D#RgnD#71\B#m^hD$4$tC$OR.7#mU_C#RCbA$6%Xu!Ds1&$N:>3$MXo.$5r@5!a,g:r
 Wr]8#R:\Dp^%!/$%US+!"8N.rsA]4rWrQ3huA9-qu6_Q$46Y<rsJf6r!WN5!t,D@(u>2tL^=@p$
 k!=G%/gM2$3^SA$OR5Hf)Gq6#7Lh@#n-M7"UYMC%L=`BrrR<N%.jl*$32$FrrRr]$MOl*$3CMA)
 n5hRK+/(k$OR7H"Uso-!t,5?K_,3I*!m#W$4H>0"UGGB"UcU)rrOAO#5JQ2":>G@#7LtF$N:;=#
 n%%F#R^bD#7C\ErX&T3$3phD"q(YG$O-kEq$@95$O@"G#R:gmrrGt'rX/W2!"/K-!=B_5rs;L)$
 O6qA$O[7Hp^%$-#n<0Nrr<H$$NCG4$N:>3$K(l7s8)a%$OI.J$4@7N$Olq@rs\o:!#s_n#9+'V#
 n%1L#lP).$3_%J#RLnJf)PaW":5DF"pXl0"q(_C%1!99g]%:`"7QTs)lio>LBn7Z#m1SA"Uhg>$
 &o6!#mgkC$j[./#m(S?%J'N&=pbKB$OH5."UbMB%L@X7rrO,I#l+cA$4R4H$jHnE#RLqH"pkMA$
 jR(D%0le;%LiXI#mgtF$O6tB#mh+Jp^%04#RCbF#R6";rrGt'rX/W2!"/K-!=B_4rs0JI$47%G"
 ptY2#m1G<"XDUup'Ug+rsJ`3!".W`JcGWI#3Z9u$4@1KrXA`5rsAl:$k!O_h#@W+$O6tG$jm@?$
 k28!t5JB#7)*trs'2B$O?tC"q:;6"UGDB$41.prrR6K$h4N')lio>LBn7Z#m1A>%2$&K#YtX2#
 n$qE$O?2.!X9*;nc&_,":PSDnHf@+#7^k@)Un]g63mf'q$ADU"UbYC$4R1I#R^hB%giXL#8.LT$
 ks$T%grp]$4@7Q$k!RS#QkM2#lk81#m:M@$OIj.rrGt'rX/W2!"/K-!=B_4rs>J0$3pkE"q:eCq
 $@03$k*;MfDkOOrsA]4rWrQ3huA9-qu6kW$OI.J$4HhA!"/]5rX&`8%1+B9rrrr>$k*:H#lP).$
 q"F$OI.G$W5XX#R^bF#m^eD%1)b9":YSB#9he#!JCjM#lkpErrRr]$M+Q*$4.<Qrs#8*%0m7J#
 Dj!$PMt/"<e*Z#7L#-"9o,=$VJnJ!tPYE$i()U$OI+I)M*]sK8ZpmKnt\nLRIhQ^msiTQ*SO+n
 uJForN_=\U_=75#mgqF$47%E$47*-h#@CP$2t;2#lk>-#ltANmJdG##Rh"H$OI(Gq$@0-$O@.Yf
 DkUQrsA]4rsA]4!=9+js+14IrrRZZ$2k51$iUJ5$iC>4%=[(3#$hWB#S@FMr<`B/#7(_B#n..I=
 PWo_2[^&u#n7%F#7(&2":,;C#&Mum!Jq*O#lkpErrRr]$M4W,$O@"U[JpF7$OR(G#mg#,!=0k<r
 r@]N#QP8&#mCPE"q1WQeGfZ%$k3CJq$@00#n%#giVrt4#RL54#mpqD#mgkC#maA_rrGt'rX/W2!
 "/K-!=B_3rs*TP$O[4I"Ut/4"UkS>$j^"gs7cs$$3(A4$3(>5#n#SiJcGWI#X/J"$47(G$4Hb=r
 X/c7%1:eg"_.ZE#7Cq<$2k2;#7C\C#RLeE$Xhik$8;ek#71\D#Rq"Hq$@-3$ORa'rrS)b#kSH&$
 $FrrRr]$MOl+$3LYB#oC#L"s3pW#RLbBmg0!Nn,EJ,#n711#m:V@#6k[erraAG$OI(6#m1S=$
 k_Cs!>5b8#mCS>#7(YDrWrQ7h#@CP$2t;2#lk>-#ltANm/I;n#71YA#mpn4#mLYA$46qEYM&pU$
 i(/0$3(A4$3(>5#n#SiJcGZJ!q6L)r!EB1!"&T2"Ub_H$OS03rrXDM$3pD7r!EE3rWr`8#7ChFC
 Z,4#(^L?R$jI(C$O$tFp'K@N!eUddoa1R(!#qs<!f%$gp^-m+!s]5B&%2EAFpnT]$4@40$1@fqE
 !caVnHf='$4.(VeGf]-#7:hE$Mau1#Rgr=hu<^'#l"]4$OI(F#m^kF#?K[\!Ds1&$N:>3$MXo.$
 r10"rIXT#7UeFq$@61$4-kF"r,bj!"8T0rsA]4rsA]4!=9+js.B;m-[5.?rrWoC$4?b=r<`i?#
 n%%K#mq(I;qV*Y_[?kY#mpqG$3ptF$2=i/#7<cWrrq@,#n$nEq$@31#mgqB%fQb8$?=\t!/C4S!
 =0#1$NCD4)lio>LC"=[#m1G?$Pp/M#NH*t$OI%G$Mau6$4$tF#m^kD)".D*Z3ps;$M+Q,$3pqF@
 atD[=UPNCpB^m.#moJg$1\9-#RCbD#RCe4#ltDFh>[RS#mgt;#lk>,#lkk/rr>Rg$3CJ?$i()6#
 R:_B$3q&CgAh-Z!"&T2rsAZ3r!<?2huBAL"b6dd$8Rn.rs3!=$4.1L$4.%;$3UYC$P![G$NU\*f
 Dc4^"UkVD#RChJ#R_"8#mC\G$O%)fkPkd?,6\;Z#S%.9#mh"G#R^tC#7Li5f)G`)oa1O'!=9^Fr
 rRr]$M4W,$O@"R[/U=M$3ptF#7(#1#7CeD$47%GKC/[A&.&XM$M+Q+#7CeWe,KRg$4I.G#l+c.#
 M'trs2U/%1EUL#mpt6#m(G>#MoC^;$dO9r<WH2pB^g;lMh#(#6tV@#PeZ3$jm@J#n$bDLtht/$
 D2$NCG3$N183$4,PhT`56A$jd:I#t^ZNrs!6D$OI.H$2Y&9$OR4I%K[+H$8^64$<%B@#RUhB"
 UtVBq$@6/#n%%G#Y+(Y#Z_68$jd1G#R:)2#R^tF#6tSD#SYbg!/C+Pr!EECWrE*T#kJ?)$4%"W[
 /U>0$4@.H#R^A6#RCbB#mgkD$^pD^";hIR$4?A2rs/W8Hdr'"TFD,2#n719#m(G>;Vh?YJI;nm$
 OI+F$Mau1#R_#thZ![T#mgt;#lk>,#lkk.rro\<#RC_Fq$@<3#R:\A$4@(\g].6[!"&T2!"&T2r
 <WN2$KL(ET`5B,#n.(N$O[4lG)=?/rs>>Y$OHtF$jm:JrX8`5#R^tJ$OI4L$OtSb#oj3W$k!CN#
 Rh"7#mh"F$O[4H$l43*mf*?F2$j0g!t,>?$MXo4#6kPB$O[1meGfN'nd5:&!#qs<!J^sN#ltAGZ
 i:19#mC_D$MXr-#QtG=#RiQVrrc70#RUq1#m(G>#h/eX;$RI:#R1_5#m(J=^teqp%13=J$OR(Gq
 $@-/#mj#VrrZ+)#n$V;!"/H,!#b&$"',a2%ep>:$OR(F$O6tF$!c9crX&W3r<`N2p^.319S\IVK
 neiF",28js.TH*,RXne$j?qE$O7+J#8%ak(gVjkruC68,9$ss"UGPF"UYVD$4I=N$4@4M$jd.I%
 g7hrs02B$3pqE#mpt6#n74N!soDA$jd:N"]C8SpAYVY@Mo@T$jm4K":,GD"Ub&3"q(bC%0d+We
 ,KE&nd5:&!#qs<!J^sP#m1G>$59cG"?-Yq#mg;4#7:bC$3ptGSF$7YW!E\:$M"K(#TqRr#FPl'#
 RUeE#PeZ,"=`+*"rR[V$4%"EpB^p-#n;ICrrZ+)#n$V;!"/H,!#b##!u_XV#l+c6"pkS@$47%D#
 mbD(s8E?*$2k22$2Ou7#mptC$O@%G#O)Qt#RVONU&R"Y#n.%E$Od7G#m^nH#n.(D%L*I`)&j;.)
 &<bh!t,D?#n-nA$k*CJ$4@4K$4@4J$4%+N#;sm.#7q+I#71bD$i()G$3UbG#R^qG#6k\C$47P.L
 (D:K8FIi%fQ_A#n7+F#R^qH"pYMApBgg)!"mZZ!/C+Pr!EECWrE*T#kA9'#R_TXrre/b%0d48#
 mLYC#7LkE'^G]#:(7O;o*GI($XM9^#C6Xg"ptYB$MXo-K%p;1<sT-=#mpnEq$@02#Rgb`hu<dU#
 mgt;#lk>,#lkk,rrH7.oa(m6#mLVB$O7%qh>dH]!"&T2!"&N0rs8i7$4-n@%d"'!$Q&i;rrm3F$
 OR.IrX'\U$j[:N"pt_H$47.H#Rh(L#mLeI%1*:H$jR1K#7US=!"8c5rX/l>$4$tHN6hM.)@-]X%
 !78#q#ob$3pnG#mpnH"pYVD"pbJA#n%(I%0m+H$jI%C$O[4G#mgqF$O?J6":GMC#qs^+!/C.Qr
 !EH2)lio>LBn7Z#m1P@#8a]G"9o);$jZS7"pbM@$4$i@lMgs>#mq%2#m(G;RFM6A*=<#W#n7"Ep
 ^,XR"qh(G$4."Hq$@02"pYDChu<dU#mgt;#lk>,#lkk+rrE`=p^.B;"pkSC#RUeC$OV(6s8E?*$
 k2B#mq"G#mq"G#mpqF$O@%C$L%j!$O.RMUAlVf#mq"I#7CbD#7CnH#mptE$3pqE$4I(G#m^qD$
 $qE$OR.K#7UqFq[3?2"UkYE$jh=+rrNf>#5/B-$OI+I$4-V<*XE,\#7_(I#m^kD$4-nC$O6qG"
 q(_C$4.%E$O6tFp'C^8d/O*#pB^j+$2k52#lkpErrRr^$M+Q*$ORZTrr`uA$3^k6#mCY@$O-qFk
 l1\m$4?>1!#F)a#h94e%13LH$jcY8!)hMM"s=<^#RUtGq$@3/$47(FD;bEr;$dO9r<WH2pB^g;k
 PGi$2Fo6#7LnC$O7(G#lY.es8E?*$2k23#n$P9#7(PB"pt_D%-S!"#RVILU]1UZ$4I+F$j[+Dp
 ^6d&rX/Z3(((EV$O[:J#mq%H%0m1L#7:eG#S%3;bPquB#7CnG#n%(J#71\Eq$Q$d#m^qF$4@+I$
 h?nrrIc[o*PF(!=KaErs+Dd#RgqF$4-D5!X]2JZMt%V"q1bFq$@34#7:bF$g@Tq9*c"2$OR4Gp
 B^gueGfN#q$@<3#n."G#mgscg&D86#n.+H$jcV7":,>?#>O.V!*/Oq!X]2Nk5P`8#RUqG#mpqE$
 i()3#RgqE,iAV%$2Fo1#mq%IrWrQ3km@.mrs8]Ds.fT"=:5EC$O6nE$ht)($2t;3#m(GA$2t;3#
 n74M$OI7L#S%4I#n%B`ao;`^#mgqF":PGF#RUh4$K29t#RgnB%0I%D%8kFN!J^sP$3(>5$Q?&F#
 DNQk#RLkH#l+c/$O7(GZMt$e&d8R9$3(85#mU\_kl1oi$jI+J":>DBq$@$3e,KC]q$@95$O$hD"
 q)$prrk.]$4-qFq$@34":>DB(#])l;Xk(n$31t+rs80+$4-nD#7Cn5#m:JA#n5ABrr<H&$31D3$
 N:>3$Ju-j)?6K3#pfc]$4$qI#m^n,#lk>3#m(GA$2t;3#mCYD$4-qHrW`K7#8G/W#s8J$$OI(E$
 jdBr#m^eC#n-qF#oSHArrIo\o*PC'!$&$=#DWZn$4@"C$i()2#7V"ZZ2Xn=#mq%8#mCY@$OI)pk
 Pkbn#R^kD$47%6#ll'srr?!l#mL_@%1*FJ,1lhu:^R[=$OZ\9"pYPD#7:`miVrmVnHf7%$Pqk(#
 Yt[6$4I.H#7C85"U>D?#7)p>rr<H%$2t;2#lk=j#m(GOs.fT!:CRU=$OI1Hkm@4orWro=#n.%G"
 qLqE&'`&m#WE"q$4@.G#RAug"UbM@%0ec7rrRoc#P8?%$31pCrs+8b#R(MC%0u\8!t,;?&$c-9<
 sf6.$3(84%1=*:rs'SJ#RV"G$4HY9!/K)(!>u7>#mL_C$4$nFLtDY1FpA*W#RL54"pbP?$j?tgi
 VrmSn-K+!)s%#(&.8XJ%0d1Gq$@60$O@+D%oVBdp'La+rWrQ3h['<$s.fT"<<N[7#mh"G$hF]($
 Mt/,$N:A3$N:>6%13o+_#FU7"qCqJ#R]5k"UGDB$WQH7rrRf\#Or*#)63]AL^+7r#mU\Cq$I',!
 ='CErrEN6p^%'1#RCZtk5PZu$4@1F#R(M0$.StVN<osf$3(>8#RLqF,h;nt*sW,[#l+c3$O-kG#
 RV'Pir9!UnHf7(#o2P$#LEb_$j6qG#l+c3%0QtG#m:W]ir8uicNsUis.]Mq&If$WrX&Z7#k\N$$
 N(21$N(50$3g_C$4.%E9YUN18I>b3#Rf;l!sT/@?-*$ICBb4;#lksFrs*u_":>JD#RgD6!X]5Cf
 `(sGp\tTas8V<_gPE%mNJmFd#E+CqLl)]M%/:,C#7Cl;g]*7iMh[+FRGQ<!YGB'm_tX09<so9=#
 V%Jq$GRN!?MI?#nI@L#RCV=)Mj6,LPL_?LktSUnV%-rN-Pg<$MOiS$O@1E#RCYRJVJc+JUDZfE
 HH_\Ir].+HqH=_6>(pi0K:sQ8P*n<n-T+%,\gk(G;:iu9NEf1G_1*hLPCM;LPCP;L4b5<L5fIG$
 O@4L#mg>5%gWOJ"pkVD%;UQOKnb85K^a["LP(58Lfac,#m1G>)#p?1#hqur%L!@O#RpA4r<`T6$
 ?M6rX'GM$O6tF$5+9n*#fb4)BBV4)B0Y6()Iqc)<i(8)\3i+)]Tb2*ZH(C)%-WS%L1Sm%h&XK*
 $QCC)BBe9*uPt8*7u27)&sS6#RLb+#mU_Y)BKh8*u`6?"r\@!)]BY8oc";X)&XA6'EJUM"q(eEq
 $@62$4@(N*#e#X*#&nn*#]\0)&O2((^pTc'GD>m$k='f$3q4[#nR"D!Y#PGo*P[0$jI1K#71,3-
 O:+d"q:qM#mq(K%1*=P#S%.G&I8dT()[r*(^Lim&dnsQ$46tE#l+c3&K2K&&Jl)ui>DS2"Vr'p#
 \3#n@4G$OI"G$O7"F#R^tG#NuNj#mUnE#RChC$3p;4-O9qa#n%(I#mL_C#R^qD$4-nD":58=#
 mUeC$O?tB#mghH":GG@#4W$"#lb2C#7CbA#m:SC#6bJ@#7CqH#71;9%L3CH$OR1I%0[+B$4-nEq
 $I'+$4I7J#7(V?%LNCHrX/H,q$@93$4@1I$OR6e#ltqDT)Spe$j[7Ioa1R(rsSi6r<`K2q["&H#
 RUtK#71\F$O-qG$4$tH$4."G$4."6$0_fl#n@.H#RLnF$4$qH#7LtE$eYjc$4I+F"ptVA#7(VC"
 q1^h#mU\D":GMA$OH;0#RC_@#RLhE"psf,km@.mq$@64#m^hF#R^>5rs0&?$47(F#7(bD#RUhC$
 i()6$3pnF#n%"Fq$QWu*s`8\$O@.H$4@1K#71bB$j[7E%LWUM$4@.J"q1bF#l4i-$Mau5$O-qG"
 ptYBp^%K;$4@(F#mptF#RC_C$4-tErX'/D$4$nE"ptSE"ptYB#mUb0#mUhC$4$tE%1;#""q1hF"
 pt_Cp^%E9#mUkC#mptE$46tG"q'8prX&`8#RUq5#mLYB#m^hC#lY/1#T3pU$3q"F$j[.F#n$qD$
 k!=J#mpkE#RC_DnHgQK$OI.G$4$tF$47"G#mgkD#mU\@#mgkE#mq%I"V1hB$4.+E$4@+7#n@:M"
 ptYE#RUnE"q(hE#l"c&#mUeA#m^eE"q(,3!!qTkq$R-.!?(p-rsX9%#mgtI#71\E#mq%<$3(A-$
 t;2#lk>.$2Fu)$3(A2$0V]r$2Fr($2t:m$/#[M$2Fq]$2Fr($2Fo.$2t;3$24f&$2Fo.$2t;3$
 (A&$2Fr%$2b/1$O@(G#mq%J$47+.$N:A%$Mb#($LnGm$LnG]$MXr)$31CS$L%lm$Mb#($Mb#($
 J>a]$D@e%$Mau1$OR^MRf<]XKkj@5(CU]Y$Mt,0$MOl,$N:>3$L%ls$N1;2$Mb#&$JPm_#l+e[#
 l+es#iQ*c#l+f&#k&*"$N:>3$LnGs#lb51#k//r#l+f+#kA<%#lY,1#l+f+$KMNh#k85k#k85c#
 jr$!$MFeZ#gitS#h]O[#h]O[#h]O[#k85s#l+c/"q21FPQ(`:GSqCt)#kKK)#bEQ)#kK<)#kKP)
 !r4()#Y?:(tf_i)#5'&)#5!;)#bEQ)#"pD)#+pH)#b?@)#5!<(^_&r(`=2.(`+#+(]>0N(\npG)
 <Me3(\&@4(\&?q(]G9O)?(K#(\ns-)#5'F(Z?7r)#5'&)!Mps)#5!D(]tZk+od,nJcC<$JcC<$J
 cC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$J
 cC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJ
 cC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$r
 VqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$J
 cC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$rVqHKJcC<$J
 cC<$M>m^k\Wr]`JcGTHJcERd%>'=gIrU$aL5(D8KWFTns+13$s+14-rt;A_:)+`f)\i_g$4@7_)
 &jJpJ:[_#s.B;kN2lmbJTb3g+V5"g$OdF>$3pqL(EQ@OJr,'YJcDGD"ndD!KnG92rrCLHrthWLs
 s+6hYFt&s8T.sW.p4b_i9S2Lktb]q1o3.MMQtDIe!F=Mh_"^!.N8o$\De*(^UKS#6tPC$N15=#
 m^eA$47%M(`PkrLsl;+J:iT3LAll,MTPl*_hNl"KSkM<LOK2qs"Dn2&fDB!'cIo'(`<f")AO/*'
 +PTo&doWp&0;Q)()7f%',hZ()&O>-(`=55$7=O-%?WO`"qCkI"pt_F$4@7@$NCD@$4@1I#mptI$
 O@u(SC7E?1D:N?)#bEQ)?C[,df0].&/?6()]BP5(D)JlrrXPa)]Sbr!ZMhSb5Vj,&JcB,(E454(
 D)Gjrsjr!'ce;6+XnNR)]0G4)u1B]*#BP7)]:A?<H2].LPN59"W[mV#m^q"rrSi*(&Jgk)\a2-(
 *+/$(((W^&J#0Y%L<IM&.8a[&I/gR%1!@O$k*%@rsA`4q$Qp("q(bE#m^cho)A_8$2t;3$2t85#
 RQ.4rssu/&.JdL$47.J#mgqG#R^P;rsJc6$4%"G#R^qE%LE\?ec,eJ#RUqJ$iUJ6$s1UO$7#cc$
 .L$jR8tTDoH1#n%(K#mptE#n..L$OI.JrX'PL$4R7J#n.(E#mq(K$k!=J$4.%I#m^nJ$5VLu&
 B9;J#7^qD%1!:H$47(H$Ocn?&.&[P%1<LL%1*@N#RUf6L>18Y"W@UP#mq%=#m(G>("3*iE!H^U#
 RLnH#R^immf*V3#RLhG$4.%F%TgjR$]#&o#mUeF$O@+FM=(<MM$OCo#7:hI#RLq=$31>,#nm^S$
 pnG#7LtI":GPD',r9FL69(I#DrWo#n.4IrT4%\K*M\\$2t8X#mpnB#R:_C$O."F#7(VB#RgtF$
 @.H$OI"F#mghD$4.%H$OZY8q$I<3#7(_H$&8$N!#>J?r<`K2!Xf9gec,n>'ab9Y!sf5Ar<NH2$
 ?\;rWiu=$4@1H#71\@%0m:M,(A2E!'gDhrX&T3!=Q]drsBYP$jR4J#R_%JLS+T!%LNRM$j[+F$
 O@%H$OI1I$OR:N#Rh%F$k3OQ$4@7K#mq"I$OdCM$OR4K$4S-9rsrQN$j-eF$jd:I#mq"F#mpJ9'
 +5-R$4@4K$O@4N#7LkI$4@7N9\9:G*sr>M$32$nrsNfQ$4.1I#R^qI%"dpI$Q06Y$4-tD$47%H_
 p&,gLC"4n$O[.H#Rh2rmJdZN#7(YE$O-tE#n%(I$OZV7$O[4G$jm:G#nI7E%K6Y;"Ut\C%k#'j#
 aN]$O@"HGier-M$j[uq[!Z<#mq(I#n%%F$jd=IrX'5B#RLbB$jmIK$jm4L#7:bC#lP&0#k83*$
 @.F#RcFYrrErCq$I0.%#<L8%FlF-#R^kB#mh(H#RUn;#lY,2#RUG:rs8f8"pYMCrX&T0"UPPF#
 @p?rsU^k#mgkD#mq"G$OLmursBkV#7:bD$jR1KM4jkPN!9Up#n$Y<"q(bE$OI.Iq[!E5#7:eG#
 Q>)4$4.(=#RUeF$47%H$j[.H']T-)dM3/r$j[4F#mh"F#mgtI#mpJ9rs9>G$OR1G#n."G$OI4L"
 q1eG$7;G!rrX2H#71;8rs/Z4$5_.j$\A]n$3pkG#Rq%FM=1BF(^UTJ#m1MB"]3GC$\Jiq#RUeE#
 RgqEMs^NSKF8+m#mq+M#m^eA#71b5#oX3U#7CqJ#mgkD#RUqF#m^eG#RC_H!tcJL]Ya[SL^=Rp$
 $tE/EQm[LC"7o$O[:J#RLeB#mptG#RLbB#mUnF#mLbE#m^hE#R^nD%0d(F#O)O!#RLkH#mZ4Ur
 r=&5#ltBcg&DL:#RgnF"qCqH$4$nE$N:A1$Mb#.$4dFJ#RUnF"qCqH#6tSD%E%!$!-S8J!"&T2r
 s8]5+3a`l)@$W[$4[CN$4DW^ru/'M%Li[N#mptE#m^nF$47.J$jm=M#mgtF$iC>B$k!CN$4%"I$
 jd=N#Rh(Xj8TR>'F+pO"q(hI"pbSD$N1;.$N:>H$4@1I$4@4I%1<IL#Rq%I%1*CK)TLP3!#bbCr
 sSi6rs8]6(Xi<dM@9[q$iUG7#RUiomf*\6$47(I$k!=H$jm8;c2S0(%0m.K#RLhD#mcCTrs=Dg#
 m^qG#R:VArX&Z4#l+fI#RUtJ#71bG$3geB$4."I$jm1H#RLhE"pbT2fYmdr*=*#_$4@1H$&[mF"
 ,7-h#lY/1#U'Q_#mpqE$3pnH"qCqD#7C_D#mgkD#RUbD#RLbC$k!CLq[*'(p^%*0#7(SAL%>6E(
 CKsD!XT*bg]&d>('=sQ$jI%C#RLbC#RgtE#mptF#RLhE#RC_C$46qD%1<OM#RLeF"pk\:#m1MD9
 '5"1!_*M(rX&T1"U>DB#mjYWrsBbU#R:\E$jd7LKqSGVn-0")$4@.I$O7%G$OR4HrWrQ3r<WQ3#
 mh%=#nI@K#n%+J#RLhE$4-tG$6/+,%lOS!#n7:H$jd4K%1EOL#lY/4#mq(=$3UYC$4.%<#S@CM%
 L!7K$O@+H#n%.J%0m53h#@Br#Q5#.#lt8Ndf0].$4$tG"UkbE%gdjUrr<r9#lb83#R(PA%1!@\c
 Mn9*#RLkG#7LtG%L@XQrs48^$Od:H$OR7<$2Fi0$jQtD$iUGJ#RUkC$4%"D$4%"E$4$hF$OI(J#
 ms\Prs9)E"pkYC#n..bk5PO=%1<OA#m(G>#lP)J#mpnD#6bG@%0d1G#7CeD#Rq"F%0m7L"par1q
 $Qp("pYGA#RCcmo)Ab-#RUA8rs8]5Ltr"H'+"mP#mCVB#Rh(L$4.+D$47(G#R:VBrWjAJ$47(E$
 jQtB#m^eC$N^YB#RUbB$3^YFB]&gn2[Tm"$4?_<"9o5?$7='u$60?[$jm%C$OI/tTDo6-$O@(D$
 j[7I$O?S9*X`5]$jR1K#7^tE#mq"G$k!FL#n74K#n.1K%1ER^k5Q2t$4@.G%0I%F#7:eE$OI4H$
 OR1I$Ocn?!so;@$2t>4$5!RO$O.+I%0m1H#m^kD$j[+Nh>[Hor!ET6$47.J(Xi<kM?aOq"V(eH#
 mq)smf*b9#mq%J#RChG$4-tC$EMMQ!f.*frX&f7#m^eDL[G*GM['Oq#7Ln9$2+]+#Q>#7#RLhD#
 mUnErX&T3rs9)>$O.+G#7CbA#mpqRaSuV%#RCbD#mq%F#n,nq"bm?j#mq(;#oj3Y$3gkF#7CkF#
 mUkG#RUnB$j[%G"pkMA#R_"(#mL_B#71_DL%>6F*!loJ#m1G?$AI=9)%d/`#7:bC$4-tE#6tS@#
 :_A#71bI',V_g)]9M-%1!7F#mpnD$O6tF$4$tF#m^_A$O-o.i;WjP#mpJ9"pk\D$3giQci4=p#
 RgnF%1*7J$Ab>S&d\pQ$4I7K#R^kE#RgtE$47%DrX8`5('Y0P$O@(H#R^qJ$O[7K$4@.J$4@.Wk
 l1^6&e+aH&e#$S#7^tI#n%(F#n%(S8Vi>uqYq)g`eAsd&.8gQ#m^qI#mq(>$3(A4$N^MJ<T!fW*
 =;KJ!#X/a!J_$]$3(>4$2t83K^SjA)$pZI#mL_F#n7%OEmXgeLC4"ersAl7#mguomJd3A$N(28$
 $tD$OR1Jr<`E0q[*90!=T23$5<jQ$47.J#7CeH#7(_A$47(G$4onRrsLjm#RUhF#RUkC$#Jf)"
 bmBl$4@4?#ltA=r<`o<$4.(G#RUeF#R^n:#ltA<p^%67#71\D#RLeE$N1;2$Mau4$O@"C$j_XZr
 rElBpB^hShu=ER%1*@I%1!4H#RC_B$4@+G#n@guNV*5dq0FG"%gEIK#R^qE#RUnF#mpqD$O8EFr
 r>[g$NCD:$O@(E%0R6grrjGO#n.+Jr<`O\TDpAM$4@.H#R(VF#n74V*#TG)*#]Is'+bW`(_[]!%
 hKHn%gWaV%h'!\%1<(B!#Xu##Zh6>$jI(I#mpS:rsAr:$4%+R:9X-d'ST'b#m^nA%LWIL$OmCN#
 mh"J#qt6:!$1h@!=B[lrrIl^rX&H/!/9k@!Z;:Or!<T8"UYSA$Npg`rrIl^rX&T3rs8`6%#40L!
 JUsZ#mgkD#n."C$k!CLrX8]6q$S,J$OR7H"qCnF$O..K#RCbC#mq%C$4I.G#msk\rsY"t$P!CK$
 $hG$3rENrudgA$OdCK$kE^Q$jmCM#S7^]%1E[Q)$^QV$jmRN$4@+7#n.%T(`*u*(E!u)(Dn"g)
 >P*R(Dn/4'b?,krrErDpB^hSi;XHM"pkVA$4..J"q(_F$O?qF#Sk_RrtF-&"UtkE#n$nE#R:_C$
 @(H!tsVn!-.lCrs8o8%LNRJ$jRBkrrsGK$OI1I$iUJ5LnF\T#mUhF#mq%K!tGE4q>UGQq>UHhr
 VllErr38ds8UiqSC5'8lMh8n%L`dN%1!:L#7:eErX&]7&5VTk%tl#8#S$tC#7V"F$4$tH"o\i/:
 #Z*R*=3#M#m:M?#mqNtrrIl^rX&K0!=OVLrrO&E$Mt//$3UPB%gQ"[rrIl^rX&K0!=X_MrrIi]r
 !<Q4$O$bA;N^p8s,6l8!/gW0*/KB4:)F]N$O[1I"pbYF#7CbA$O[:F$4$tE#tWAA%"Aci#R^qC$
 Om=I$5Ve(+-DA8Mj;*&UlC:p`h\Iks8Dtc]Vtk2d%ne^s$d+t#l+c,8(@P=)YOI;L>i.F;@a$A#
 RLtH#RUtF%1!1F#onZ`rt9u(#mV"F&I/XN$O?nE#Rh+J&EEcj2#@X[#m^qG#RgkD%g5_VrrsbT$
 O@+H$iUJ5LnF\T$4.+J$4@.E%g3>saSuiS$jI%E$k<LO$4.(J$jd(Yd,k9?;%3g>%Km1M"Uk_E%
 NUK$7*XOrrO2I$2t;3$2t83(t/EbLC4"erX&`8$4DRUrrO&E$N(2:#7CbE%0d%G$!YjX!J_$]$
 b,2%#40L!JUsY#m:YC#Rn9-rsOd8*=3,^#6tVB$OZh="q1eF#m^qpd/OU9%g<FK#mh"E"Ub_C%
 (XR]"+gsf$Mau.Lt)G+)[HfG#lo_>rrb=g!t#J9#RC_H"q1eD#7Y2(rt4HI":GA?#RCYF#n%"C#
 Rq(ZjSo3Fq[3?0#m^bE#n.(A%gcdprrXeZ#n6\<!/R9I!t#GE#lY,5$4I1JJ][p'=pt`E"q(bC$
 jd=K"pkGE>2oPo_\<@]$jR.I%1!:H$4[FN$8LT@!Z_RRrX/Z3rX&WBdf0?'$N:A2$3LYC$\e$K!
 Z;:Or!<K7#m^eCrX&Z4%FY7WLC4"ersJ`3!=OVKrrIi]r!<N6#n%(CZK;*#N(jZd%0m7H#7CkE$
 jI"C$OdFL%ak:d<sK*A#7C_B$O[1C%LF6#rr\,a#mg>5!.`T!!?2@E$Mk&/L?&:F=9]3C#R1\D#
 mL_@$4-tLMW+RH3Xl9$#mq"F#7(SD$O6tF%H[Ti<r37(#mq%L#mC\D$jI%B>LWTU+:JMa$46Y<!
 /I6I%/U;=$4%"H#n.%G%YMq("H*No$4ct@"q(\F$jdG\i;XDT((1<W#RghD$jd=G$j[+I=60A]*
 V]pA$5h4k!J_$]$2b,2$\e$K!Z;:Or!<K2#n7.GrWrW7$5(be!J_$]$3(A3#ltEfmJd3A$Mk&2#
 RV!^j8TLD+q4h^$4-qE#7(_:#m:S=#Rj&Jrru1+#7LhC%/pP9$OI.D$d8POL]n7_#lo2!rrF&Fr
 <iE.!/BS7%pK>G$O-qH#mpkH$4@.B+5[#*D[QgW#n$qD$k!@Gr<WH>k5PEaq[39.#RCeF"q1_D$
 #&[$5j6Z#n."G$4.&pTE"m!#RUqH#n..J#_U>#&+U&<#R1PB$4.4L#Rh"G:u)'^cmT&+$4@.J$
 %+I#Rq(G=69G^*W??F#lP&2#RVEsrrIl^rX&H/!/9k@!Z;:Or!EB1#m^\A#RLnF$3Vs1rrIl^r
 X&Q2rs8]6L$em@L'mhb"Ub_D#RnW/rt/!;":GJB%1!4I$O-nI"pbPaeGg*L%L`RN$3gkD#mUeD$
 [>*bl7d)#R1b6#loJ)rr=#9$Mt,0L?8FG?jI&F%LNRL$j[1G#7Ul=g]%d1#7CbF$3^_C#mq"C#
 mi0Grr?4!$N:>=$4I7I$O@(D#n%9nrsC[l$jR1H$OR1ILS+SS%1!=L#m^hF#mq#obPr%^$4I7L$
 .(F$OI=M$>nMs&CLjm"q(_E$Od:K$O7(H#^YY5!Z_RSrWr`8$OR1I(t/EbLC4"ersA`4rX&XYm
 f*>+#n$P9$O@(I$O7+E$4%+H<7V!LLC4"er!EH4L$em@L'mears/Z8"I7mE&_/35%L*1H$jR1I$
 %"G$ORa$rt/WG#RgnF$O@(G$O@+F$jI0#c2Rir$Oc_9!+"+S!?;LF$N(21L?ALHdKg-e#R1\E#
 m^kG#R^o@g&DR^#RUkD$k!:K$4..H#Rc=Lrr=hO$N:>>$4..H#m^hE#m^i8ec,td#R^qH$jd7I$
 AY8R#7LnI$4@7M$iUJ5LWoc.*=!#X%L3@L#RLqH%17"*rsuXR#RUkH#RUkH#mq%I$7+d6!?DOG$
 b,1(t/EcL'e:e$3(>7#n$ulmf*A,#mgn6#mpqE#RgnE$jd7J=k<TSLC4Ig$2t85#mu@Qrr@fN#
 lk>3#lt:$h>[L8%/pVB#7:_G#RChC#mgi7f)Gaa$Mau5$3q"G#R^u`c2Rm#$4.(9#lt<:eGfLfq
 ?m6/!XK-dk5Po0$jm4H%L3@H$47(F$;9"N%Q=_%$OR(F$k!IM":bVNkl1WerX/Q0!XK5BrWi`8#
 RLbB$4XPsrruO1$47.L#Q>&1LS+SJ$jmCA$NCJ9$4@2rc2S8J$OR.I#7LhF&.&UO#DL_.%L`[O#
 n%1K$OmFK$Od>>kPkQ-#5nl+$31pkrrRo^$N:>8$4$qH$&@sK!uVCO#lP&>#7:P@$46qF#7LqK"
 V#D%rrRr`$N:A2$3CM@K^Jd>LA(uT#c-8U&H*1H#Rh%J"pt_E$4@+J$<>aY!aQ0>rX/N/"pbSC#
 RLc4c2Rm#$4.(9#lt;leGfLfq?m6/!XK-dkPl#8$4$tM#RC_E$OR@G%SkRS%Nu5_%LNOK#RLbJ"
 ptVOl2L`er<iK0%LNFG%1!:I$474J#R1]ZfDc%X#mgtE#7g_?!/I3H":GPE$P!(C!t#DCLX#i.&
 -rRK%1<UN#R1_D$6I^s%pK5H#RLkH#n%(G#mgtFM!4j>9+1\)r!EE@df0B'$4?b=rX&]7#_h^H!
 uVCO#lFu<#R_%H#m^hH"UtYC#9VRt!f%-jrWr`8#mptGK^Jd>LA(uT$EMq]&9&'a#m^nD$j[+G"
 q(\?$XVNd!"8W1rWrT2$N:A3#QQ!lrr[u_#R^D7!=2fWrr=#7$N:>4$AI^D%U98E$OR.F%1<:F#
 (c-e,Kmd%0HtD$4.%F"pbYF$H)0/!*T7-r<WT7#RU_CrX&T1":5MC#r1'3"u?Pr"UkbErX&X\T
 E"lu#Rh1M$O[:L$AZq,%9*cC$P!@K$4[LP#n&62rshp4$jm4I#m^nF#Rh(H)!Lu#9a(D$r!EE@d
 f0B'$4?b="UYVE$4)=QrrX,F#mgJ9"UbVD"Ubb<$N:>6$k<DDf`(u-$N187$4.%G$AImI!/C4S!
 =PRSrss#[#R^qF$jI%F#RLhL"r#_j",I9l$iLG1#mUeD#RUhE#]n;k",7-g$Mk&0#VX^-!#tbAr
 WrT4L$8OG&IepO$jI(E#RUtH#9;1l%Z(Dt$O$nC#Rh"H$3U_SlMgiOr!NE0rsK8E#R^kD#RL_D"
 pYVA:>#RN>RC]G"pYS9$35jRs8NN-$O7(G$O[:L$AZt-%:';G%13@I$jd=G$4R9frshF#$OR.J$
 @1L$3q+E=m>qe1(4$er!EE@df0B'$4?b="UYPB$O_XUrrX,F#mgJ9&-rFI$jm4F#RUnE$3^_C$
 Wu*^!J_$Z#m1M@$AImI!/C@W"UYMA$4;aFrt"u8$4@+H$4$nG$4-qB%tr^;"&o[7$Mau6$4.%F$
 OI.E(!cg]LC+:oq?[0.4k0K3)u9p@#ltBdl2M2n"UPYH"pkVC$O6kC$den`/IDgk#R^nF#RL_E#
 RODprr>+V$5!RP#6YJA#mgqI#7:_E#7UnXg&D7[#Rh+J%gi4B!/I3HrX9&?$jd:L$4@2rci4F^$
 jR(G#S%(G#8%1L<7(XTgC+8s"q1hF$4.(J#S&QQrrF8Jr<`B/!#X/a!eq$hrWrT4$2t83JaWO?)
 $pTTr<`K2#n-tG"UtbC#7Lt=$N^VBgY2Z.LC3nb!t#>AK^Jd>LAM8\$4$qF$Ad@7%Q=Y#$O7%E$
 pnD$jd+Ig]%?s#71e5#mU_C#mptD$4kG^",@3h$Mk&0#ThLq!#tbAr<WIVl2M2#%LWLI$4@"F#
 mgqF;pYIR*!m&\#n..G$O6qB$44uDrr?s3$4mFQ#mgqG#mL\A$jI%C$3P/!rrlU6#mUkCr<`O[T
 Do9,$4I:N$OR7K$O_a:rs_j7$4@7O"pb\F$jI(UcMnAj$k3FJ#m^kD#RLkD%Vk;/!@J'L$N183$
 h4k!eq$hrX&N1!=4/BrrX,F#mgJ9&dJgM)%-]S#mq1I#n7(F#mV%?g]%;/$N(51$3CM@K^Jd>L
 AM8W$N:>4$Ad=6%S?s5#71_H#6tMB#7(_mh>[YZ#7V(K$Mk&8#RLeE#mghC"@:B6",@6i$Mk&0#
 U%Xs!#tbArsA]2!.sM9%7CI.$4.+I$jm:G%0IQors]DC"pkSC$O7+L$4$qkm/I&rpBhI,;%*[;#
 (eF"ptVB$4@=2g]%Ft"q1nH$iLD4LS+SS$jmCM$4@1K$4@5sd/OOl#m^nF#S%7L$Od:MM9Z&0+
 :&8Z$k!:K#mq"I#9)n-!?hjL$N183$5h4k!eq$hrWrT4#lY/2Id[4<)$pTTq[!f`L'\1m$OR(D$
 O@.G$4@(Qg]%8.q[*90!XT3emJd0@q[!E5#mpqFM:V\:%0m7G$3pnE$O-qE#7LFcrraDP#6t\9$
 N(29$O7%E$47%E(=3!^LC4C`#lt;OeGfLfq?m6/!XK$^li.HS$OI1I$O@%F$O7%D%(=F\%9<cE#
 bB%1!.G$O@1-rr>sm$4.(GX8`S4$4$tBrX&Z3$iUD3&)7*fLC+=o$4He>!/I3H$OmIQ$O[@N$
 OdCNL!fo#K(oZT#7q.abl80.#RUtF$jR(D$jd:J$]"'J!?MOG$NCD8$4@4K(Xi<aL(!tfrs8f6$
 -uHmf*>0$4?b='ab6Q$60"M#71_D#RCVC#RC_B$OJ'5rrRua#lP&4$4-tFL$em@L'mb`!sf2>L
 XuJ8=U>HA$O6qF#mgkG#7=2_rtpk'%L<@J#7LhF'mgi,$4%"E#m^tG#mc42rr\#`#R^A6!$9Yi"
 <7aV$4?\;!X]3gli.Dl%0I%G#R^kE#7LkE&^:7WN=?%!p^.$,NU?`G9Df+q$53^QMuS/5"pt\D$
 $nG#mU_C"uG'7$AJip$OR1J$OR8sTE"p"rX/]7rX/c7$\d".!u;.K$2k52#m(M?$d/JY2[Ba"!
 t#GC#n$qG"<6\,!?MXJ$3geD$4@4K)UeWfLC4Frr<WQ5$O^e=rrO2J$N:>@$4."C*rl8^('OsQ$
 He>":YVA$YA/o!f.3ir<WT7$4.&nmJd3A$Mt,0$N:>3LXlD67g]P0%L37G#m^eD";0Pk(f1VF$
 "F$4$i6s+1F]#7(VD#RCbC#Xm&>",@3h$Mau.*n:2m*"!&\$Mt,1#Cu.?%4_\p#7(\D$4@.F#
 RbFkrrGk*p^.'.#<hJS!)iOu&r?SfdLQWi#RUhG"pt_G#R^lIh>[h'#m^kF#n%+J$\k>S%.X]5$
 @1L$O[@M$\d%/!I4tM$2k52#m(G;=3COPC'b.P"q1VB#n$tF%0l.u!?;FA$3:DJdf0<&rX&W3r
 X&`6$4(Y>rrO/H$N:>7$4.+E*rc0M:(7I:#mCY?$47"F$OR2rhZ!Y5$OH\;":>GA$AImI!JUsY#
 m:SA#muL=rsm9Z%1*.G$47"G#RUqBJDpMG[Km0H$4-tF":YZis8NK6$O[7G$4."I#Sk_d",@3h$
 Mau.-.Mqp*;p6A#lt6Vm/INO$3q"F$O[:I$3^eG%*JSOq[3W($3LJC#FY#[!,hT>!XT6irr3L,#
 RLkG"UbYC$4.(G$OC"orrZsD#n-_>!t,DBKqJAQ$k3XR#mq%J$k!Judf0Cj$jm=<$3LSC%A_/H%
 b2$o$4R=N$k!@N#RCrbm/I/2#RLh7$3:VPdf0<&rX&l:$47(F$O(V>rsB\N#mptF$4.%G)#aIF&
 InmO#RLkD#RUnD%0m^=hu<b6$OH\;":,;?$\e!J!JUsY#m:SA$4;U=rs_!o$k!:G$3ptJ#7:hTi
 Vs6b%1<CH$k!IK"r7.;$o%qn#RUeE$O$bD$(93@",@3h$Mau.-Ii%q*;p6B#m(G>I-gkB,7+_^$
 O@"F$jI1G#^a\n!CRCm$3L\@#@['#!)NJ!rs8`4%>k&`%giOM#n."E$jR%C#mpqFIGb&-C^::Q$
 t;6#muBYrsK8B%LNLL$O[@N$\m+0!Xf;CrX/Z5rX&Z1)p&$g9aV=7#RpqD#R^tH#SHG'""+<[$
 Y&1#T;(j$\o&r#mgqG#mh%HH1(\5)@6<L"UPMC#mq[Mrsf8A$OI"F$4..G#m^qD2;eE8L^OLe$
 k22K^Jd?L'mea":>GB$Ad12%1EON#m^kF"pkSA#ROMjrsCXg$O[7G#RC_BJH#QWBaG1P$4@.I#
 mq"I:=9(DLC+:oq$@$AeGfLgr<iK0!t#>@J*d1D$4I7J$jI(H$O-bD+NXQ`K+.P_!"&W4mf*8[r
 !NE0rsAa[rVmG!&dJUG$O@(H#mgqJ#mUdqi;X.<$OmFK$OR7K$AG,P$Om=L$OR7K$4@1KL"$&'h
 ?sVg$N1A4$3:W_aSuF:$jd=M#lY/7#mUnH#EA-N!AP,_$2t84%N<dq"G[<k#mpS<!so>AH1(\9)
 @-ZW#mpS<!=0\Crsr99#7:hE#mpnD%L3:L#_Cq6!f.3ir<`K2!XK$^mJd3A$Mt,4$4."GLsuA5-
 ska$O7%E#7CnG$5qn($K_j*%LNUQ#7:\HrVm:g#7:kF$O@"G#R:bFdJj<($4%"7#lksprr=&<$
 N1;2$NCA3HL:_A;%3d;$O[:K#mq%I$[p(qp^.-/#RCchn,EGg#mpS<r<WK3M#@8`>6YWE#7CbA#
 n%%C$4I,;i;X.A#R^tF$OR7K$\k;R$P*[S%LNRN$4@1KL"$&*C'5%R$4?_>rsAc5OiRJ2,Ratc"
 q(YD$jd7K$u#&.![7dTr!EB1!=9.^rsOSh$4."G$4@1I#B]D6$5s0W#mgkE$4I.Wqu70Z":#8@"
 UbVF#mUhB$kUP>rrRua#lP&4#RLb@JF3@;L'mea!"/]3!/K&'%Zq5,$46qF$OR.G#Rh$ijSoR+#
 :eE#7:nI#u^^$$nDAf#mq"F#7LbG"'a4R",@3h$Mau.+4U;j*<$<D$3(>6#mbG9rs]\L#R^tG$
 O-e?&-rHua8Z,Xq$I61#n7,In,EB#rX&W3q[*=Vqu71%":5DA#7_(G#7_+F#maSjrsFAe$Od:J$
 @1KL7nPT`WlqX&.8gQ$OdCOLXZ8)*XrDM$32$brsaSh#Rq.I$46kC$47(^mJd51$4?\;rsAc5(
 Xi<aLC4"ersAl8$O[;]mf*V4#RUkD#RLhC#oia@%jVAf"q1bE#R_"F$4$qEFlNE&L^OLe#lk81$
 NPnJrrIi]q?[60#mlC8rs]MH$4%"H"UYPD$4%#jjSoMp$4I7I$jd7H$iBr4JdVek#RLhF#mpnG(
 Xi<cLC+:oq$@$@eGfLgrX/T1rsAf8#\<B'%?(W$#mgtD#R^tI#7;!]rr?$n$NCD5#;YcJ!.aqRr
 sJl7$A\KX%nd37$4-tD$4-qD#n.(H<T=#cEXW3_#mgtI#n)K[rsK/?$47.J%1!FP#`$q0%K-VB$
 OR4I#n..I$k"B$rrA_f$NCD6$4IX9rrF5Jr<`B/!#a5b"G[<k#mpP;!XK-Qmf*8*rWrc9#mgqF"
 WmL>%MK*S":bbF#RgnE$j[.iir9CC$4.%G$4.%E#mQ+Nrrn/b#mptFr<`T4$\m+0"%ES($N182$
 N182>NPklJI)\i#mUeB$48WdrsK/?$O@%K#6tPA#7T&\!f.-iq$@'-*7Xug*W-6B$3CG<JF<F<H
 jKTVrs8c7#R_Efrsabl#n@=M"q:eD$jm4Un,EBCrX/Z3r!EFXq>Ug?%1!7I$O6tD$jR.=#ls2Lr
 sFDc$4.(K$OR7IL7eJR$OR7L$k!FL$OI2eeGfYq$4@.KrX&f:$4@1Kd)H"d)@QoL$NCD7$3q#qm
 f*>+#7:56!=K^lrsOSh$4."G$4@7J$<llt!#khC"ptYC$47%Xq>UuI$47:G#RLeG#m^\C#mkS2r
 sOYj#mptG#mgtI%;tS5%#5/r$4."G#mq"G$AR"/",7*e$N187$4."G"u><?$6oi`"ptbG#n$u=q
 Ypt($3pnF"UYSC$OI/`e,KK*#n$J7!=0[prrF,Hr<iK0!XoHLmf*;a%/^J3#m1SA#<Km)%d4<0$
 %(L#R^kD$4%!/nG`K@pBgnTq>Uuu%1*@K#71eC#R^qH$OBPgrrn)_$4.%JrX&Z3LS+SS$OI.H$
 ."H$4./ReGfq%"q:qI$k*IL#nII_`;]m6"qCJ;rs8c7$O89OrrGFop^.!<df0]1$47(G$47(H$
 O^#'rr<u:#mL_C#mq"I)Yj=C<sf6B$4."D#S%.K#mq&>jSoUE$4.%G$4-tD#6o/7rsXYi#mptF$
 .%H#muF8rr\c!$OZh="UYPB$OI^5rr_!\#n$Y<!sT&;$i0f2_[-\T%LELM#7(V>.b"D!L^=Fa#
 lt;OeGfOi$2k50#m(;7DXRN++9`)M$N:>6"ptQi`W$Ao#7CqD$4.%I#n77MC@M6'KD,]QLA:cZD
 [HgW$OHtF$3ghB$3phKjSoC<$47(H$iUJ6$&>/Q$OI(G$4@1J$OI4IGgua%)\!#X$4.%I$jmCG,
 /jK_D@$XI$NCD7$4@1[mf*;9"8N9)#T;(j$\o&r#mgqG$O@%A@.+$p)ZC$I$4."G#Rq^HrrF5Ir
 Wii>$O-kC"pPJ?$`)na$],2s$4.%G$4.+KJ*m7ELC+=p#mgqF$47(HL=-#&)$^NI#mCYB#mUkNk
 Pd?$O7%J#RCeH#>"Xi$m#c]$jR(D#RLqG$'Ea;!f.-iq$@'-*7Xuh*=;ZOr<WN7#[m*#!uDCQ$
 t;2#m1S>$&Z_%%>#&m$O[@L$4.%G$3hUArrRr^$2k51#ltBfp\taH#R^hJ#RCbE#7C_F%0pS.r
 r@iM$3:HgTDo9-$4@1K$4@1H%0hX=rsd]m#R_%K$k!CL#n.26`;]mp$4Qh>rs8c7#mqL:rrG:kr
 <`E0!=]pprsOSh$4."G$4."I$Z,82!#khC"ptYC$4.%XpAYUu#mptD$4@(I$OR.J"rcV'$],2s$
 .%G#R:_ED=.?3LC+=p#mgqF#mptGL=-#&<!j!2#mL_C#m^kFQ08/S/dMdi$3peC":gssrsV[4$
 ghD#RUhF$4&ZArrRu_$Mau/#TV@o!$1tDr<`T2"_R3&"UkYC#mq%<#m(A>$H2rRLBe=r#mptF$
 P!:I$Q8I6!f%'gr<iN1!=FSTrsqL)$j[4H#n@.G#mphC$ZP8.!/LCX!Xf<jTDo9-$4@.I#n%+H$
 C+hrre,b#7:\6$3U_D#mb+\rrRo`#Q+r/#m1MB#mfu!!Cm@l$2t84#7T&\$\o&r#mgqG#mpkB>
 Cj)ZC$I$4."G$3qRDrsf>?$jd+H#mghF#7(\C''B3%M$aOr#mptI#R^lRmJdTM$4.%G#mptF$
 $undJj9%#n$V;!"/Z2!=1%9rrmfX#n$qEr<iU!p\tYY":5DD#RUnD#71\HeGfT+#n$J7!=0[pr
 r=);$2k24#n)7OrrIuaq$@-/#mhWirs]JB$Om:G$jd.F%0m<Znc&T@p^$s.LA(WYndPm3$4-tA$
 jm=G$Om7JiTL4JLC+@r$OR7K$OMT\s8NE*$3ptI$4@1H%8YOS%;#kS$O@+J$jd4I$4VX*rrErCr
 !NH1rsAc:%.=,rE=DgQr!EH7'@QmgLC+@p#mq"G$k!PPmf*8*rWrc9#mgqG#UoBG"]Z!7$jd4=#
 mLV?%L!7G;s4/gM$aOr#mptE#7:fPmJdTM$4.%G#mptF$4$und/O+X$N188$4."D$OI[6rsCC`$
 OR.H$OI%FMY@&Y&-`UJ$4."G$jm7B<7V!ML^=Fa#lt;OeGfLhr!E9.!=<!!rrGt(q$@-/$47ilr
 s_-u$jm=N#6kSI":bconc&TAq$@*.$A\<S%os)A#R(\D#mUeC#RLnE+6WY-LC+=q$OZk@!==ORr
 sK5B$4.%F#mgqG#`7+3%3>fb#n%(G$k!CM#mlI+rrEuDr!NH1":>GB$deAB!D*Rm$3:DJdf0H*$
 (GrX&`6$OCD5rr<u:#mL_C#mptI2>$nZ:CIF7#RUkF$O[.I#R_!4kl2$I$4.%G$4."I"q!]ar
 sXYi#mptF$4."G#RZ=5rrEoCr<WH2r<WK1)X780R0j9-#RLbB$jm='pAY5-$j[7?#mCP?":PYNe
 c,],#n$J7!=0[prrF,Hr<iK0!X]0;n,EA8q$I',!Xf<V_uC0O#m^kG#7CkF"V(bEM"1KGL^O"c!
 t#;@L\1TQ]FP>V"UkYF#n6e>!XK3/kl1gB$4.(J$N:D6$&>/Q$O[7J#n.(H#7CtH<7V!X)[d#\%
 *FK#7V"I$]2e$!A"NP#m1M@#`8$M!DNgo$31[drsOSg#RLeC#mq"I$?#;3!u_IP#lY/1$3:GQo
 D]:X$47(G$j[.G#RC_D$Oc1u!f.3ir<WT7#7:bumJd<F#mgqErWrQ3rWrR[d/O.d$4?Y:!sf5A)
 sRA0-O0q`$jI"F#RM1;rrh'c"V(e5$.]%WL^=Fa#lt;NeGfLhr!<?1r<WK.B(,a&(^^QV$Mt,2#
 RlF)rsaYg$47.J$O@%H$jI&cnc&`H$4-tDr!<B0Gk:q>BEnhM#RUk:$NCG3$38N=rrIl_rX/W4!
 XK*YTDoE/#n71J$4%%I#Rptb3#`k:*W@#g,UXZT*ul=D,9@gH*u^F4rr=&;#m^qF%h/dP$jWuRr
 rGgtq$@-1#mlFVrrF8Lq$I0.$i/9O$\o#o#mgkD$4.%E@.+$s)@6]UrX&T3!=9b;rs%Zl#R:hB$
 iC>1$32pIrrRua#lP&4$OR7H9C;`^L^=@p#lY,1$N:>3LX?&&)[ZrJ#lt5:l2M)&$4$nB$OR4N#
 &3`0"$I"o%f$D2Mq7n0L^=Fa#lt;NeGfLhrX&Q2rX&T1!+bQu"<@[O$4?Y:!XK0n_uC1!#mptH#
 RUkC$47(H9C`#_M$j%b!=4&CrrjGP#7CbDr!E?0!>*WCrrIl_rX/Z5!so>DJ=liL$4@7I#RChF%
 m1Ir<NE1$N(2>%1!7J#n%.K%1N[O#(u@D$lTH^%LEIN#m^hG$5p_\!IPFR$3LSA$AS$L!C$tf$
 NCM7daS4(LC+:n#m^hF$4@,>mf*A-#mgn:$3(>5#orO9"m-%$!t#D2#ltAPlMgpA$OHY:!sf&>1%
 "uDL^=@p#lY,5$4$qELX?&&/d_s_$3(>6%1CVMrsH%<#R_"H$jQtA%J0T%Z476Jq$@$af)Gf-#n
 $J7!=0XorrF,Hr!NE0!X]0In,EM1"Uk_Fq[!</$g,A,"c3Kl#n.+<$3(>5#p]!?!JUsV#loMGrr
 E];rX/Z2rX&Q2!=K1urr@iQ$NCM6$3:HOT`5T%#R^qF%LNRL#n.(I$O-nDq[*f>$jd:M$4@1K$4
 $kD%>F6M$jd=J"Uk\F#n.7N#meEJ!/^IX!so;AJa`U>2[9$a!=8,BrrIl^rWrc7$471L$rcTo!u
 _IP#lY/1$3:GQnc&a3#S77Hq$@*1"OQK7!f.3ir!<H6$48WWrre,a#mpt;#m:S@#mlC6rrPn%$M
 t,4$3gkFN9gKN<!`g:#mpnB$O]u*rr<?!#lkIdrrRu_$Mau/#TM:n!?DLD$NCD6#R=K#rr<i5$M
 t,1%2?\Z!O`=4$3gbD#RUhB*:a%0L'mb`!XK-enG`\$"q(YA#mpM:!XB)Yli.!@$iC>6$O@#ETD
 oE0#m^eD#R_%G$OR.F%1*@<$3:PErX8`5rsJu:%1EROL@5'N*<ci\$Od:L$4-tJ%Ht_0!/gFV!.
 !$1e@!=ASNrrIo_r<WW7#R^qI;ssYf)@6]UrX&T3!=9b8rrY7c#RgJ8rX&Z@f^/V>L^OLe#m
 :J?#mVpHrre,a#mpt;#lk>3#lob-rrQ%)$Mt,4$jR.JM<k0K'FG0P#mUbF"UrNDrrO)E%/:,/9@
 s1FL^=Fa#lt;NeGfOi$2Y)0#m(JAB^c!$%KZkB$Mt,1#7\QM%IOT1$O7%H#mq"F#mVRBrrIo^q?
 m6/!/'e@"\T4.$OI.;$3UYC%L-#$rrRua$Mt,1$YQ+3%LWIL$O@.H#n%"D%LNIJq?d90#n$S<rs
 f;$4%)rmf*\/%13=K#mh"H%13:P_Z'Ump'Lg,Fmo>2*sVNJ!XfI^e,KH)$N187$4.%F$<-Bm!u
 _IP#lY/1$3:GQn,EG(#mpP9rWr`8!tYYDMs^NGL^OLe#m:VB$4S*Erre,a#mpt;#lk>3#lob-rr
 Q"($Mt,4#71_DM<t6H;[Na;#m^n;#ln&srrQ./#PeZ,#92:p!f.-iq$@'-)q=lg*=;WNrX&T1!)
 r@d":b_G$4?Y:!=K[ZrsT8A$O-tF$3gqD$OI^@rrI]Xq$I-.Idd:<<!is-$3US>$40]!rrRua$N
 #7LlWTDoQ5#n%(F$4I4I"q1hB$OI+H$4.%;$4I=P%1EUO%0m4J$jqUSrsT5B$P!OM#n%(I#n
 .TdrrIraq$I33$4(Y?rrF8Pq$@*-$'!F6!Jh-^$2b,1;ssYf)@6]UrX&T3!=9b6rrNQ6#l=o3#R
 gtD#WhAQ!f.3iq[!<2#!))N#D`Zm$4$qE#lY/3$&6h,!`'.1q?[63#mc:QrsQgR$4.%B$O@%G#+
 >#]!Mg2"#m(>?L=lM-L^=Fa#lt;NeGfLhrX&Q2r<WK/=7?.l('b6T$Mt,1#T1GY!<)m(#mgqF$3
 pnE$4@[?rrITUq$I-/I.%"8719#"rX&f;":YYAj6lpKLC4If#m1MB#%F8*%JL2=#RChF$3pnG#m
 Ck=#lk>3$3(>B$k!FM$4@4M#mq(I$k%URrsT;D#n@.J$j[:O#n@H^rrIraq$I33$4(S=rrF;Lq$
 I'.!1_O<!Jh-^#mC\C#Rh#9mf*A-#mgn:$3(>5#orC5%rDUY#mgqF#m^b@$4@.HC$u!&L^OLd#m
 G>$Sq,L#D`Zm$4$qE#lY/3#_p_+!`9:3q?[62#RlITrsF/\#RgqI#7LeD%e'Du9+1P%!Xf60f`
 )#/#n$J7!=0Xorr=);#lk>3$3(>4<U]qj&degM$Mt,1#TLY\%Hn')#n..K#R^hG#7DUCrre)`$4
 @7>$3:N`mJd/.q[*6/":b_E$pj=]$AJlp#mgqG$j[5>TDo<,#Rq+L$4@.K#7CnGn-T@($k*IN$X
 `?%$k!@I$O[@M$4$tK#RnTM#Drlq#mq%J$N:>5$Oh.GrrF>Mq[*90!Xf6ue,KT,$4.%G$2k23#Z
 L0k!?2@C$N:>3)X[P8:^7:6#mUbB#mgqF#7LlGn,EBErWrQ3r<WN5#pAX8"c*Hj#m^n:#m(G?Ls
 Z/%:\b;"#RLkEM!b3L1_']u$4@+H#mqjErs[<`#Rq(K"UtbE#RV6trrJ#br<`H1rs8]3)q=li*X
 E)[q?[0.;XaVe(CUWK$N183$P^GW$k3IK$jR.H$OI.K#9*.4!/ga_rsAZ3!XT3]mJd]P$Om=K#n
 .I#mptE$jRL8rsFMf#n%+I$47(H<hKC$%1<RP$47(L$4@7K%Lqq8"qLtG%LW_Ymf*_)#mq(I$j
 mCO#RCnJd)5kmTF2&4$4@4K#mh"H"^^Zt!G2c;$3(>6#n=PrrsOSh#mptF$4."G#ug9l!?)4B$3
 (>7#mptWm/ID+$4$nB$jI%F#7LM<!"JDs"H!Nn#n$S:!<sV4rrn2b#RLeEr<WN4$&Ht.!)WIt":
 PJ>%#=6M$4R.I$3phF#Rgojmf*J:#m^_B%0ZY<!X]Hhg&D54#mh"H$2t;2#lkporr=&<$Mk&0#Z
 C-k!>c">$3:G?r<WK4]Ya[W$O7%H$OR:K$O.%G)Y*h-LAhP[$2k23#]8r.%oruD#R1SB$OI(G$4
 .(F<:KnpLC"7p$4.%G#mae.rsK;F$4@.J#m^eE$#.ri%2K<Y$4..L$4I7J$k0qhrrRr_$2Y&4#m
 pnFC[_9(63mAorsAf6%`?cq$\o&q$4."G#mgqF;ssYd)[QBK":>GB#o`.0%SR09#RUbD$OI+F#7
 LetnG`lR$47%H#RUkE$4.jBrs"8c#mptG#lY,3$42L7rr=;;#ltEjmf*WD%1*FI$O[1H#8uq/%#
 )n%g`OI$jR(D#U\7)#Di]m$OI+H$N182)q=li*=3&[q?[0.;XaVp)[Ho\$4."G$4."B&a7.4%E
 \`#RLhG$3ptF$j[dArrA#W$NCG2$3:;tli.Jq#mq4H%gNFJ$4I+I#R\67rsFMf#mq"G$4.%GA"
 Wc/$k!CM#n.1M$4R8oec-'o#7:tN$4@1I$4R=NfYd^iL(!b`!XK9en,ED1#l=r.$3CG<X4.(VLC
 +=p#mgqF#mpr9mf*8-rX/Z3":>GB#o`+/%LiaN#n."F#7UkI$4R;Bnc&uT#mghE#RUkE$OS'Ers
 +Af#mptF#R^M:!/8f"!$M(D":#;@#KH33$699T$jd:N"q:com/IJ&$3peB$4%"H$4%"$gA_>8$O
 I(G$Mt,0)q=li/dVjlq?[0.;XaVp)[Q]V$4."G$4-tE#`HV#%>G,u#71\E$47(G#RVaFrrBt9$N
 CG2$3:?(lMhAQ$jI%G#R_%H$47"J#SH4irrn/b#mq"Gr<`O3TDo9-$4@1K$O@.H$kA!Ars]kR#n
 .4M$OdCL$k*N:_uBar#keT*L[Y6D:'g_'rsAf8%'n@^$\o&q$4."G#mq"F;XXPd*!luO#m:SA$4
 .X9rsr-9%Kd(G#71_F#n$qG$!Hj!$_Rh5#R^nF$4."C*prt4M@'Xr#RLbDr<WIUd/O(`q$@-/#m
 h:5rsFJc%1!=J"U>G<*p`h7(^pZV$O@"G#RCbA2;8'6N=?4$$4?Y:!#sGf"%<S)$Mk&0#ZC-k%2
 B9Z$OR1H$47(F$4DR*rsann#R^qH$4.(H$4$tVnc&TbrX/Z3rX&]5$;Bab&"*b5#RUqI$3geI"U
 PSD%eBW,LC+=p$4.%I#maA"rsK5B$jm@M#mgqF#)Cb/%3>la#mq(K#n.4L$4M[,rrI-Mp^.'3#`
 A*N!D`ps$2k22SC@KALC+=p#mpP;!=2Tkrr=#;#lb51$3:GPl2Lc]#Q>#:#RgkF":>PB#n(J=rs
 Q^Q$4.%G#mptF#TrI6%#PAu#m^hC#mgqF$%UD&!#kS<!=0V3rrP.d#lY,5%L<FNB']I*EX!$_#7
 _B$O71K"krtXM?sUg$Mt,0)q=li:'_16q?[0.;XaVp+pA8[$4."G$4."D$&c_$%<i-b$47(I$4
 .(I$j[mDrr@oT$NCG1$32dErrgFW$O@(<$3peE#RLeG"uc)Q$A]#q$4."G#m^i0TDo9-$47.J$O
 [7I$4MR;rs^+T$kE^O$O@+L$O7)r_uB`l"o/N*$NUOQn,EDE$i:81$NCJ6NRRn2LC+=p#mpS<!X
 f<5mf*V5#RLbB#mptG#oi+.%Sd9;#RL_D#R^k@%LiULoD\pF$O@+;#m(JA,45C=M@'Xs#mptF$4
 (GIaS/rdL5jWrsAc1*q0+:Jd2Sg%LE4F#RM"'lMh82":>DA#RUkB$4-uVg]%G6#m^hE$Mt,0)q
 =li8d5V0q?[0.;XaVe@1*JB$3:G?r<WK3;8`DC>mUoF$O7%K$47"G#ZU?o!1a#qrsAZ3!Xo>kkl
 /#7(_F$4R7G$4I:H%16,-rsFPi#mptF$4$qD9q_Lin-TL.$jlk@!X]6]ec-(A$jd=M%13RP#7
 _(JL;X#m)%$]I$3LSA#7g2%!D3^r$3(>6#n;mCrrn/b#mptFrX&]7$<?No!Zh[Ur!<E3#oi(-!"
 o2:$4$tE$47(F#mh"_o`#<X#mL\A$4.%G#mVR>rsX_k#mptG#mgqG#ml%-rr@]H$3(83$p!eV$;
 h*<$3geD#RLbNl2LcZ$iUG;$OR1K"ptW1g]%G>%13@J$Mt,0)q=li7gfY2q?[0.;XaVeL'S1c$N
 (22"rY>Y%:ohQ$OR7K#n%"G#mQ:WrrDKd$NCG3$3CJ@2!=lL4U23!#RUnF$4$tF#m^rYp&>2O$O
 I.H#lY/3"APNgrs8Z5rX&W5r<`OXec-)7#mpqF#mq"K#n%"F>/^FBisQ1h$3CMA(@M2',mX5Prs
 Aa`e,KK*$4-P:!so;?<:9bn*=3)[$47%F#mqX6rsfPI$3phC#R^hD#mLkK)YF%4$jd4I#lY22#l
 kt4rsXVj$O@+G$4.(K#R>1nrrF;Nq$@-1#7H@VrsCFc$4@+H$4@+GHg(J;#7UqH#7(_D#7C_Ug]%
 GF$4%%I$Mt,0)V"ce:\G(p;=FMdM[Tmj$N1;1$31CMrsThO#S%(E#RUkE$O.(0rsQ7C$4.%H#mg
 qG#p8=0%pK5F$4@4K%0[1J$O[(IJbK*NLC"4m#m^hE$4'7rrsK/A$47%G$4@4K$%g\,!tGYH$2t
 ;9$jd:L%8k(D!h9Q*q$I03%2A71!EBF$$3(>4MUVS/L^FCo$46Y<!=2WlrrF#CrX&f8#RUkF)s.
 )0#RUkJ#RUkE#R^qE#nV(Lrr\5c$OZk>rX&Z4*UWk8M$aRq$4$tI#R:VBL!fo$*<u<G!XoAFn,E
 cc#Rq(H$O6hD"q:"brsU%P#m^nH#Rq1J#R[*Wrrneu#n%(Iq[!6@eGfP0#knW*;==Gc(((BI$N1
 #RLir`W$CQ#7LnD#n77J%1*:N(\%G4bmOjb$47(G$4."]jo5f<#Rh(E$O.(H#RLeJ#;5`M$AS
 on#mgkD#mpu4TDo$%$jd:Hr!EH2K@Ko0*<ulZ$4@4K#mq"I2T5UsJ.)b[$3CG9*q'%/>RgK8!X]
 <me,KW.$4."G#mpS<!=2TkrrX2F$46\;!t#>A)s.)1B*\qL#RpqD$OI4P#6kUbp\tH'%0m(G%1)
 q?!=9e6rrJMpr!<N6#RCbGL=-#%$jcY8!X8uJn,E_p$4$tD$OdFH%8l<g$q^s<":5D?$O$hG$<5
 g\"dKK'#mq%:#lkmnrr=hJ#lmijrrO/I$2k51#m1D=%=H.p%>PH!$OmCH#n7%A%L##brsP)"$4.%
 H#mgqF#pJF1&).?t#Rq+M#RV"H#mC\G:&"YpLC+:n#m^hD$40CursK/B#n%%H$OR1I$\d+1"<S'
 ^#mgM;":GPD#TCY]"'c->$2P#/$NNrirrFkYp^$s/Mpq\1L^OLq$4.%<$3:E1mf*A0#71_9#lb2
 $6/(+%o!B:#mLeG#7CbB$jm4LkkP/coa)$8$3^hE$47([mJd0irX&o;$4-tF$OI,Wdf0AI"V(8
 !Xo5onGaGq%0[(E#mpnG"pm_\KS>)2KntG<J;A]/Gt3M_Karol,6eG_$jd=I$4$q?$f(acN!]m
 u$4?Y:!#jAe!%mmN!)`1a!C%"j$N:>6$4$kb`W$B3#7:kF#R:bG$Od:FM=CNQ[L3EK$47(G$4."
 ^jSo`u#RUqE$k!=G$OI4J#6mWlrsFMg#mptF$4."D8Y?"c#n%+J$iC>4$%pb-$sX)E%LNLL$4RC
 P$4OlQ!'0uaq$I+amf*<.$iC>1$3CMAMpq\/L^OLq$N:>6$4@/=mf*V9"pkVD$OI(F$6/%*"qM"
 K#RLbBr!<E4#9*C;$cr__!t>GC#mq"G*UWk,\bug7$N(22%<U%u!>l1=$3(>4C[h?C:C@U:$O6t
 E#RgnC$O7(I#mUeA#7V"L#7LeCq$IW<$4.1I#6kJ>$4%"F%L"H?rrIu_r<iE.!#jAe!HnbC#lmi
 jrrH"%rX/Q0!t#>;*6%pe*"!&X"V(kC#7(\E$]"3N$4@1I$47(G$47(^j8TK2$jd4G#7h4M$4%"
 <$inZMrsFPh#mptF$4."D8Y?"j$4@4J$OI(H$k!;ieGfuR#m^_E$OR4L$OdCL5K3X(*t&AR$2b,
 %L_\(!D*Op$2k24#n)[?rre,b#mgt;#m(G?;ssYm-4'qa#RUkD#mqX2rsfYJ"ptYF#n.%H#7^t
 D62CNblO*q,#7Uq;$3:GRmJdU'#71YB$4.%F#m^cddf0@S$3p;4rsAbgnc&[]%L2n?rs0;K#RLk
 F$OI%B$jd7H$4@%E#n.%Gq$@96#71_C$OI(;#m:G=$jIU*rrn;c#n%(Iq[!6@eGfPS#PSN);==G
 dHO:,fq?[31$jalQ%FPRg$4R@L#Rh+K#RV".rsB,@#mq"G#mq"F+6*;10*hpp$O?tG%13=I#RM.
 >rsFPh#mptF$4.%G9V;=m$4@.I$OI(G$OR,he,Kgp$OI+J$4@1I#mq"V`r?/<#R:e;$2b,2#U/U
 !CI%g$N:>5#RcU?rrn2c#RLhEr<`Q2;ssYh-jg7d#71;8!=Be*rsrfK$O."F#RLhD$O@(H#@%'
 )#*fW,#7:eErX&Z4*UWk8Z3UdB#mgqE#RUnCJ(+E"?jI&Gq$@'+-1LpSCCCRT#mUnF#6tSB$O7"
 I$O[.D#m^nF$4$nG#PeZ;"pt\D#mq%I$4@%G#mLnEG2E6&R0j3-$4?Y:!#jAe!)N:p!)`.`rX/Z
 rsJc4":,;>#33c(%:9DK#m^hE$OR+G$jn$DrsQII$4.%H#mgqF#9Mk(%LraR#7M"G#mh1L#mpt
 NqYpnY$4.%H#mptG#u%#l"8`E6#Q>)7$4."G$AHt/%3Z)d$4@1L$O[7J%1\N@rr[f]#7CG:r<`T
 #ug6k!-J,Gr<WN2%#i[8!f.0hq[*B2#ZL0k$6]T[$OR7L$4.%YiVs2t$47"G#m^kE$N183$h!l
 k$4@+I#RUtI$4."YmJd?u$4I.H#lP&2#RYP"rrX2E$jcY8!=FAHrsh3u$4.%I#7(\C$4$qF#lY,
 ;$jm7J#71YC#RUq7#nRIL$4I1H$4$qE$4.%F#ROAbrro>1#R^tHq[!6@eGfP@$hjr-;=4Ac*=<,
 [rX&i9#RUhF$%g4t%35Z[$471I$4$qH#mXJursB,@#mq"G#mpqC*T@#/=q:iG$4I7K#m^kF$O[5
 ;qu6hU$4.%H$2t84#YL`h$OI.J%1<IK$4@4IK[]r1JI;hm$O[:K$k*LP$Ur,9$mPob#n.4H$jR1
 F$52_*!GMo?#mUeF$47(F%#WO6$\euo#mptE#R^qF<UTko+p\J\$4.(I#mqR.rsh^."ptY@$O6t
 F#Rh(H*W#d>$OR1G$k*%A!=9e6rs[il#7LeE#7:b@$jh[<rrc@1#mpt;$NCD7$OR+WnGa=#$O@(
 H#mghF"pkYC#m^kG$4."G$4.%;$MFc1$4-tE$OR:;#llF2rrfA0#R_"<#m1M@#TD4m"',X6$Mk&
 #Z0pg#AOVR#mq%F%/pM6%0[ThrrNH5$Mk&2$j[5mmf*V%#mq%I$4@4J#oqn'!Kdfi#mq%H#mq(
 F$O[4HOo54_LC+Iq$4?_<!(rm`rsB&?$jm=M$4$tJH.2d&fE_ol#mptF$O[:L$Q$na%>>#q#RUq
 D%giUP"puXBrrI3HrX&N1!so>CLsuA3L^4=p"pk\E$O@&5mf*V="pbMB#71_D$5qb$%LrgM$46t
 E%0d7H#Rgqaqu?[$!t,A?#6"o0#TW73%*](c$4%"H$4.4L"cCh0%2]?Z$4@.K#RUe@#7AB<rt8`
 E%0d.F$3pkH#R1VC$OI%C#jr!(#RLeC$OI1Eq$@'*T\obP[L<KK$Mk&/)V"ceFoDaE#lt<.m/IM%%
 LECH%L*7J#7(\GJ][omN"5^lrs8c;#7Lq+rrEZ=r<WT6#RUkXhu=0I#7V%J$4.%F$Od:I$5*49"
 c3Kl$OR7>#lmSirsK2A$4I7K#7CqG#$o[W%2/sV#mptF$O[:L$O5Y5rs^7[%L<@H$O@"B$4R;mm
 /I0A$OI.:$NCD4LsuA,M$F=p#5nl1#7+;srsC7^#RLhC#mptG);kH)>m^lD$O@(C$jI+K#71fAr
 Vm)m$O[1F#S$b>!=0\4rsZmS"pYM@$4I.I"USPdrs`<A#mphB#RUkF#R^tsn,F17"UGA?$O7%D#
 m^nF#RUhC$4I7J#RUq;$24c3#mpqH#R1MEq$@'0@,LteU^7G8$Mk&/)V"ch49u9$q?[0.;!e2k-
 OC.h#mgeD#n.%G"sM+g!.aqRrWrZ3$3hpHrsR'\#m^hE$Od@L#oqh%%M0!Q$OmIN$jm1F$4%"Mr
 Vm([$4%(K$4$P:!(rm`!t5PE$iUJ9$jm=MB[Zni<XT3@$O[:M$k!IO&5^OL%DW>X"q1hE%LNRS#
 k\(rsXSg#mgqG#mgqG#7cI:rsO,X#mptH#RUhF$%)+?$9&D"#7(SB$OI.XhZ!V##lY/1$Npb@$
 j7"<#lo#Erric8#R_"GrX&Z4*UWk8`X<+Z$3gbA#mh"JB@["k$4R=G&-`LG$O7"E#&Wl0(fUSL#
 n.%E$3pnE%1!7I$OR7L$4$tK$Ocn?pBq35%1!=K%LWI9#lt5>hu<kq$4@+H$Mt,0)V"ch>RLlGq
 ?[0.;!e2lU^%85$j[4H#mh(D#nC@crrNl?$2k51#m(G?(%)#(oa;'5%/^G5#oqe$%M]B[":YSD%
 *7J%1!@nrr31X$jR(F$k*%@!(rm`$OdCL$OI.I#mCSDIFA-)[L!9K$k*LP$k!IO$4b5Y%:]SN$
 O@(H#RLYA#S7a:rs+/`#mgqG#mpS<!=2]SrsN$:$OI.H$47(K#lF&i""a]_$2t86#71_Th>[sa$
 Od1F#R^nD%gWOL$Ocq5"VCtK#n.%;$3:GRmJdU1"V(eC$OR1K#RU]Lf)H1[%0m.F$3g_D#mUbF$
 Le!1)[ZlV#7CkF$jA?bd#Fu]OfQ.#R>m@!M$K!!LQRR]%gr+=!Xf92i;Wl8$OH\<r!<?AeGfV]"
 pt_6#lt<.li.D2$jR+I#RCeB#Rh"D)9`$aI0^5f#mq%=$3(>5$T7;N!t,DC%/^G5#oqb#(CCQY#
 mpnB$4[4E#RUi9s8Rc^$OR1H$N:>38tZ+k$OR1J#mpqH%1EJpdJjYR$k!IO$4@4K$OR4G9[!GF*
 =W8^$jd4I$Od@M"^^Np"-j,u$2Y&2$j%HurrkLi$OR4FrX/`5$gms$2[g-%"pbSF#mqR*rsfVM%
 !:H%13IG%L37H)ZKa?&do!O#7US<!=0\4rs/9)"pt\D$4Hh=!=X&$rsj_j#RUkK":YSE#7:bAE
 UWo7"pkMD#mpnA$OVLCrrG4eq$@*0"rH4t#3uX%$jd7Jr!<?AeGfVP$OR7;#lt<.li.Gs#7LnE$
 tG$3U_B%*d#r"W.RN#mgt<#m:SC#7JoFrsB5B#RLhG$OR4I*8LQ1@gNSO$P!CM$4.(H$4@F*s
 ,@9g#mpnCrWrQsTDo9,$4.(I$4$nF#mc@7rslRG$4@4K$OR1J$P3OQK?aE*M$sUt"Uk\G$OI(I$
 RG$;!V[$%$2k25#mq"Ne,Kar#RUnH#71bG#:Jp=$7u;c$jm=J#71_Tg]%us#n%"C$3phG#7:hF#
 *XB#RL\D#5ni/#TW42#7q"H%0d(E#lY/2L=lM9r='#<$4$bB#RpkB$jnEOrsOAd$O6qD$Od@L%
 #j'C!"AZ0!sf;@dc(3/q$m`=$2t;1#lkmnrr[EL$4?V9!=2Ners]>C$OR@N#R^kH":YMZc2S5h#
 CnG$47(G$4@:L'C5Z"&I]$F#m1D>#oq_"'i,,I"pkYD$O$nI%0QqHs.g24$47(;#lmSirsK2A#
 n%(I$O7(F$AQq-%3Prb$OR7K$4I@M%1F<&rs]bM$O[7L#mptE$O[5pl2U\g#RUqH$4-qE$]3C5$
 U_D#mq%I#R_#8mJd;Q#m^kErX&]5$5qUu's@uM#R^kE#RUkE#7ChFiVsDr$3q"<$3:GRmJdUI"
 q:eC$47"G#7:]?f`)F@"q(\C#71_C#mgqF#KcH7$7?#c$47(I#7(W2h>[Hmp^%!-$Ad[@"Qg%"$
 \=r<WHBeGfV<#RUq8#lt<.lMh>>#RLkB$47%H"q1eE#_C;$":Y_E#mpS<"UPMF%L=uZrsR'[$
 .I#mq"G#oq\!'b^c]$47.I$O@(F%1*>)@Kd&G#71b:#lmSirr`Z;$OR7?#m1SB$Zj\p%VH.W%
 m:K#n@@N$jd8pci4GJ$O7(H$OI.H$4I4K.-U[>)%-ZV#m^qD#n%%FJ(=Q+;@Ea9#RUqH$4..-r
 sCLg$4$tD$47.I)qt<1:]q(1$4$nB#RLeE$4%_O$jI%E$3pkD$4.^>rs\W,$4-tE#m^eE#mY+rr
 sm-[$47(H#m^kE#mUkE2t-bSN!Kar$O@(C$47'th>[n4#n%%E%1!1H#R^o4iVs)+#n.+I$Mt,0)
 V"chEX)pYq$@$tl2Lhu#7Uq:$N(21(XN*j9*kt7#mptD$OI1I#qG6?$4R7J$OR4I$47(ZgA_WQ$
 jR+H#mgtH#7CeI#6##0$N(218Y?"`$4QnA"ptYD#n%/sci4Ir#7CqH$P!=H$jdCP$,Fsg"M>*F%
 <%?"UbYF$j_(@rsThM%1*CI#n$tG#RqKurrrr8%1!7G%/pS6*pin61^46l$OI.H#n%a+rrlC4#
 mC\ErX'2C#RLhD$NphC$O@+H#mptYmJd4c#lFu4$4.%G$=;Hd%U98F$O6qD#mU_B#m^b[mf*VL$
 O@(G#7LnF#ZKLX$m#QY%0[.H#7CYD$ARR?"kX(e$OR7<#lkmnrr[KT$4?S8!)Vq["GdBk%1N4Cr
 !<B,6dboCK*Vqk#7V%J#R^qG$OZ.u!=]A6$3UYB$4.^*rs")_#n@4H$2t;6"pb\6$N:>38Y?"_$
 Mt26%L`^MA^CAdLCFIq%1<IO%1ERO$4J9/rs]bK$jd.I#mpqH#mgh\kPkuG$46qF$O$kE#7:hFL
 Y)P6<!E^<"q1bF#mUcBm/ID\#mptF#RC_C$Q@[t&fq8c#mgkC$47%E$4R+G$47"FrWrW5#or=3!
 "/T0":,;A$%gq3%W2R]#m^eE#7V%I#RLhMmf*Zb#RUhG#mgqE#mn9!rsU^p"q(\C$jm@K$O8!:r
 rEW8rX/N/!#jAe!H\VA#lmfcrrWl>$jQ\<r!<E4#@l3^%29!R$O[.E#n71J$3sPprrET9r<`Z6$
 (Zf`)C`$O@"H$47(G%13IL$2Y)0#lt<&TDnlurX/r>$OdCN$421,rsjPi#n7=L$4R1H%LiXM6
 .>iC-OC.e"pt_D%1ERR$5DV%$lfBZ"UPMF#RLqE$<PjZ$3U_D#mq(F%1E^dli.;f#mgkD$4%%J#
 oM:o(G?(!#mgkC$OR.F":GM>$jI+F#mgqF*:3\5$O7"F#mpnE$k3D^h#@n($4$nF#RUnC$O6qD$
 ,e^rsCXj#mq"F$jR%G&DI-aI/XBX$OI%F#mphC$L?^O!=];5$Mt,0)V"cfG7+<UrsJZ1!)VnZ"
 Kmt%/pV3#m1G?$>e5l%3>Z_"pk_I%L!.E#n%1*rsB8C$47(H#mq"G*7t2tC'tFU#mq(G$OR.:$
 t;3#lt<&TDnlur<if:%0m7I%Y;n)%QOh#$4mLN%1<II&IJkuec-+P#7LkE$O[1G$3ghE#D_F@%
 "/Qo"q(bE#m^hG#6ic[$UtC+#7CkF$4@+C;="5_:^6n*"UYJ@$j[g(rtfb_%gi[O#RLhE#RUhF$
 jd:I$4."G#or=3$OR+G#mgqJ#QtJEK\cY=-jp@i"pkVB#RUhA$4$r9mJdM*#7:eD#RUkG#:S=+%
 AX7=":YPB#RUkF%0J$=rrW-*$2t;/#lkmnrrR?L$2k52#m1G>#uKgb!`KC2rX/N/!t,A<G1Q['-
 j^:g$4mFJ"q(\E$O9r$rrM6nrX&i9$4.%H#oqOr#oX'V$jI%G#n%1@$Mk&0#Y:Tf$OR7L$4@1M#
 n7+G>0['WM@'h!#n@7L$OR+I"q2-qrsmB^$jd7I#m^hJ#n%(F466DNU^@>7#71eE$Om7J$X_Wf%
 ''dC%1<LI$4R4G%#jNP$;q-9#m^kD$4@.\f)HL-#R:VC$4$qF#RUhC#m:V>$OI+H#or=3$OR.H#
 RUnB$P!RHL#2h?8.,_2#m^qG#71bC%0m.nmJdQp#7ChC#RUhE#RlOBrsU%W#mUb@#mUhC#RV@,r
 r`Z:#mq%:#lkmnrrIHUr<iQ2rs8W2!)VhX!>Gk>$N(25$O7%G*7t3#8HoS0$O[+E%1EUO#R*9Pr
 sB>G$47(H#mq"G*7k,rfF/&r$O-qD#RUA8rs8c7#mj1qrri`;$OR7KrX/c6"^B4N%pohR$jd7N"
 UkbF#Rh%I<S@B^E"3'Y$4."G%13CG%1Ep0rs`?B$4-tE$4@(E$O7&Ah#@e&%LEFH#RLhG#mUtsl
 Mgl\$2t26$4I@N$5M+k%nmE;#R^nD$4$eG#RLkH#lY,3$4.^=s8E?2#7:bE$OR4IET$j.AJ5:V$
 O6tI"pbPC#R1VB;saMk<!Wm<#7:eE#mN`Krsakm$4$kD$k*CK"Ukapj8T,c$iUM1#lkmnrr[HM$
 ?S8!)VeW!"o2;q[!E2#RUqNFP?a)9aM=9"q1qH#mpqE#Ri6GrsBAH$4."G#mq"G*7b&pgD'_u#
 mgkH%/:20#lmSirrWT9$4?b?":YVG$pMl7$VLs:$OR+K#n%%J$N:D5Dqk:%=9f6@$O@+I#n.%H%
 *O'rsk.t"ptYB$j[7I#RUhEDr(Eq%g`OJrX&c9#71eGl2LiZ$OI.=#Qk;=#n,8_'HR\g$4$nG$
 @+G#mpnD$4."G#or=3rsK,?#7ChE$4."GK]2qB1'\-n#n%%F#RUhE#71eA*UE_4$OR4H$OR(G#
 RcL@rsT_Q#7:eB#71bE#7Fu#rr`W8$OR7<#lkmnrrRHP$Mt,3$4.#8jo5<_rX/Q0#7(Y@$j[1EI
 ,+`4'a>!O#n.(G$4.%I#RUcdk5Pc$$OR1H$4.%H#oqIp$"aMM$OI%H"pkV8$N:G4$33\jrsK2C$
 OR7L$4@1L#uAbE!8IJ[$k*CQ#R:\D$jd=M#p%k%%oW`B#m^kE#m^nF#7:kFN8X^F'aP'Q#RCbC#
 mpkD#nYtn$ks$Q$O@+G$O-tF$W$$e!Da"##mCYB#mpnMeGfbq#7:_B#mgt6#m1G>#oi72r<W]9#
 mgqF#RZ%@rt.s4$4$tE#mLhF#mptF$O-nRli.<A$4%"H#R^nD$k(Yd$rmN@#R:\D#71_D#9)Y&!
 =K).$N:>3):\ZeH3X-N!=2N_rrcF1#mq%<#mUhB#R:bF$!?'a!YG_IrWrl=#mpqD$O@%I=69Gh&
 ./gQ$OI+H#mqR!rs'5F$4I.I#mpS<rsSi6!so;A8Y?"_$N(88#7UtG$;SbD&]kas$jm1E%LEIK#
 n%+I"Wq[Art'/o#RChF%13@I$OI(I$O:S,rsuCB%0?nE#RCVB$OHnB&o$A*%;c^`$4I+H#mpnI#
 R:n(rrGn$rWr`8#mghF)Un]h`XiC^$hal/#RLeVm/R"j#7:bF#7CnDK]`:Jj%:9s$jR1J#mh+I#
 ChF#6tQAlMh29"q(\B$3gkD#^Y&$"UbYI"UYM6$3LP@&A7-)"3(NT$2k50#lkjmrr@NB#lt<.j
 T]h$NpkF%1*@G$4[=I#7LkSI,k52gGocP$O-t;#mU\C$j[1H%E@K/$5!RO#RUkD#mgqVdf0P@%
 gNIM#71_6$3LSA$;$li!"/Z4"ptbG#Rq)Rao;tM%0d4H$O7(F%1NXM#8%1M+liS6:(7F8$4$tD"
 :YYD#S7.H<o*c^=9]0@#6tYD#RLD:!XT*)jSo]1$jI4H$4.+I$4-tC$!?Ek!)NP""UYPA$ORKor
 rlC,$O@"Fp^%$.#mhR;s8<6/$4.(F$4%#nkl2?V-k6Ig#7_(H#n%"G#RUbC$4I>ElMh*0"V(bC"
 V(b9#QWN-rsT>A#n."F$O7"G$iqa;rr`3,$jlk>r<WHAeGfQ"$ht#/#Z0O\&g.Jh"U>AB$4$hB$
 j?tF#RMN+k5P^2)@ZoU$OR:NrX8`3!so5=<TF)d'ab9R$OR4I#mqQtrrWT:$jc\9rsAi7$40:rr
 r<E)$O-qE%L`XL:WWPKW!`q9$P!FL$4.%I%giUM$4Tqsrt/`K#RLeE#mq(K#mgkD$O[8Mg]%=5#
 RUD9#mUbF"UYPA%ScodrsrQI#RUqB$OI4G$OI4H$#o)-!)NP""UYPB#R;'krran[#n.+7#m1G>#
 oi72$OI.H#mptF$3pk@;X=>u@M]mk$NpkI#m^kG#R1_F#n.%F#U@marsDF-#71_D"q1hF'\*-k;
 [<d<$3pkC$4$qE$KV3g$3^k;$N(21):\ZdJbKHO#Z0L['2/`D#7:bG$OI.J#mpnE#RLrLRHjebJ
 K#"'":PbF#mh"F#n.(H#ngk0rsBJJ$4.+J$OR1I):AHeCBt1Q$Mt/0$3LSA#t^ch!"/Z4"ptSC$
 jd;4`r?\]%LNIN%13CM#n.(O#n%%K%2BrOrtB5c%1<=J#mUeH$jHqG$4@%H$=2?b',(`Z$jHnC$
 OI.I#n$qI#n.)"Ja`UN6k'S4#7:bD%1*7H#m^nF$>JZ&!DWq"#mCYB#mpqVd/O1e$O$n4#m1G>#
 oi72$jd7I#mptF"qCkL$5N=Q!#PVOrtcRj)&!>]$OR(I#RLnG#7UnD$4@:G$jR%G#?^0h$4[=K#
 mq%D#mUo6e,Kgc"pkSC$4@.G"q(`:jo5Dk#RCe6#lkjmrrI]Wp^$s,:uM?hE!Zs]$3g_C#6kYD#
 mq1E%LECH;2M@ErtL,J('b'O#mh%K":YPB#7:qG$OA!8rrj)B#mgqErWrT4):8Ba<"&X3rX&K0!
 =;;hrr<E)$O-qI#RC_C<lP(S(C1<T"Ub_F%13@L#RUnF"UbeT&ju0]rtXQi'H%8a$NptF#7:_A$
 O[4H$O7%Rf)HQt#R1YG#7:_?$3pkF"pbJ<%Limb(aF]bqYq:b=;_te&HrCI#mq"D$OR4I$4R7J*
 Td;%:'gh*"UYPC%1+!#rr`34#R^>5!sf2>)smS6#mptF$471I"pkVE#n-P9!"&W3rsAZ3((:NT$
 I4H#mghD#mLeC#7(YF"pGWXkPkmB#mpqC#mUkE#7/cX$mc,b#m^bA"q(eG##==\"7QL&#l+c,)
 :\ZdL%blS#Z0FY)N5C:"q1nH$O@(D$3gbE":>DB$47%T-@CT+re^T2(5kru$O6nF$jd:G$4."G$
 j[:I$O@"Nhu<]l#lY/7#RUnF$5q1i!`T=5r<`?.!=;;hrr<E($O$hE$jmJL`;_`2'FP0R$4@4I%
 LE:F#n..M#RCnH$lTg08L-#g>='JO(^^HT#Rq(F$j7+J#R_%I$4@(B$S^*11Fik;$O7"H#RLkF$
 NpkH#R:S?%1*7F#8A!n(D@l&$OI1E$O7"F#RCbA$jm7H$j[(G8`]mS:'_16#lY,3"q)HtrrV3g#
 P\T-#RLeVm/I(m$N:>;$3pqI$3^eA#Pe],$2k52$3(>?"pteG#mq"G$4$tFr<iQ2!X9H8jo5Z&#
 mUqD$OI(I#rpB5!QGWK#ltABrWiQ4$l.n(!X]5>q$@$=eGfN'pB^j+:u2./.LcOf#7ChC$j[1J#
 mh%G#RLV>$O7"I#RLbC$47(G$4@"D$k*:E#R:_D"Ut_F#mgkB%923a!#bbC"q(_F#mgqVcMmo$"
 oSc,$3UYB$407qrsK2C$OR7L$4$qI#Bdo`/iX1F#R^tJ#7:qK$jR.G$OR1I#RUqH$4$qF#7C_B$
 %"E$O7"H#7CbE$O7"GrWiN6A^^S\6Oa5,r!=bY#R^nE#n%%F#n%+J$O7"E#n.+E$4-tG#mU_D#
 n%%I#RLhI"Ub^_j8TH^#mq"F#m^hD$4tM_!*f1(!sf2>)smV)$N:>;$4@(D$4I.J$MOl*$NCD5$
 Qn>rs9)=$O-qH":GJ@#mUndjSoR;%0[(C$OI+F#n#&Z$lK<X$O6tF#mgqE$%h=>!=T8/#lkjmr
 rIiZp^$s,:u)(,@1NJL#RLeC$4.%F$3gnF#7LhB$O@"E$4."G$4."G#7:eC#R^tG$3pnG#7(\B#
 RqN*h>[g$$4$qF#mpqE$5q+g!YPbEq[*90!=;;hrsK)@$OdFO$4.%H$V\D:!]1]$rX/Z5r<`N2r
 <iQ2rX&]5#RUG:oEba0#n%"H#p7gHrs"u%$j6qC$MFf+$MFf$$3g_B$j?tB(?,9#:Bq:6#7UqD#
 RM<lrrGb"q[!E3#m^eD)=7A,#n.%F$OGYs#RC_E$4$nE$o-cA![.dUrWr]4$O6qpd/O,K$MOi,+
 Qi\*%LWX>#lkajrrIf\q$@*.$VoFU"Y'fc#RCdi#ln5brsB;E$4@+G$O?tF)U89`Y7(d:#R(MA#
 mgl/TDnm"rX/Z3#7D"K$jSADe`hkbM>rACM2I4KLkq_)NK'3]Mi*/Dmem(d_lMr!rrKZ[p^6s+!
 "/Z2!"/W1rsJZ1!"/K-":>;A$"_`g!;ZEi"ZH\o$Od9u$3(85"qLthi;X-@%1!7J#RLqG#SPA]!
 "/T0"pbDC"UPb=mf*KL#R1SA#7]Vu!X]5>rWrW6%YaZW!8d\S!9j"R$[E$d$4$tF$O@+GK$aMuU
 ^-Z$!XK-Iq#:umaoDD$gVEjh]^G[sd`2</#m^53*u0.gOb0"3K8''4K8Z.MM2&=dM1gbKMM6hAL
 kgnean^_tN/*+DLm:R<q$@65#;M'lLPP)Jq1T'.Ui[1R#n.'l#mLugX+Z:^K^sikL)5JrL4tA;M
 eih/#n%%G$OI(F$Yu8dL55SZq1\X!reLE+s+gW/!/:E*$%IS_Ll$bAILHS_#mLYA#mUeD8"fkkN
 !Tgr$O7(J":5PD%LMn;!"&N0!=926$iUP7$i(,2$k!FA$Q0?^$P!IM$jm@M&.K$_&.]Bg$OdR]&
 ePWkq$R-.!!r3'!"/W1rsJQ.#mUhF#mV1j(`=4g)Z:NO)?1WT)?(QS)%.9#()7]()Aiu)(_Q`b%
 gs0m',q`&',hbr#RChB$i()/#l=o.#k833"q:kG"UPhc(`F>.()R`(n/2TN)B0M2(_[,[#mq%=#
 R:_B$5FWs)]\hp)Aa5%(`4/.%i?'%)A<u&(E+5.&K;T+)AsG2rYYYR%2]lu)&X/-(Dmo/*#&bW#
 mU_C"q(\@'HR)iru1tW)?(QS)?(NZ)&!Jd$Od4Hi<]Pm#mgM:#R_+e)Aa;2()?fb%iGZg*>0"q*
 #9)!%iGli(&ejt'c7Pj$jd%G#m:PA%0dIc'-.l,&/H3')AsG*(E=A3(`4,-)&X>2)&O/+)#P9M)
 #kKQ(^Cfp)AX5'#n-J6*=NT"()[qu&/#Qe$54-_$k<m_#n.7V#n@LU"qD"9#o<jT$4R4G$jm:U$
 k!@L#n%+I%g`XN#RpY>!so5>$ht&5#n%1I%L<F;#m(><$2t83#k//j$3pkC$4-tG#7B,j#7(_G$
 ."G#l+f-$2P#(#o3jS$jd+F"ptYC$47(H$4.%F#mL_A$Mb#($N:A3$N:>3$Mk)($3pbC#m^nF#
 RgJ8!t#;>8>,t`K+._e#mgtE%LiXN$O7(8$LnGt$NLM4#TF'W$j[4H#n%%H$4-nH$4@1K$47(I#
 R_"I#RUJ;rsA]4oEkL(r!E?0q$@98":Y\E$4%%:$3(A,#lk8/$3(8N$OI(G#RLhF"pbPC#mC\?#
 m^bA%LELI$4.+E$fD=%#R^nF#Rh(G$4$qE$jd=Jq$Hj&(^UHS#mUbD#71_G#6YGB$O@1G%1*CL#
 R^P;'FY6T#mptF$4@+J#6tSE#RLnG$4$P:#R^tH$OI.J$46\=rs/c;#mq"A$Mau6#6kPC#RCbC$
 N:A2$MOi2#R(PA#7:ap#rW%q$4-tE$47%F$3ghC$47.H%L<7F$jd1J#R^nC$jm1H#mh"F$OI.D%
 L*.J$3p\C$jI"G$2t8?#71_B$O[:J#RUqH#lY/0$31D3#lb5'$3gnA$jm=I#5JQI#7:_D#mpkD$
 -tD$O-tF$O7(G#n7(D#7:kD%1WIIp^%rH#6tYC#RLnH"UbSC$3pnB$4%%G#7CnG#71eI$MXl3#
 \B#7(PBq$@64%L37G#R]Jr#7:bA$jR.I#M07c"pbSD$4-G6rWr-&#7:hE$OR.E%/pS5$47(F#
 mptE#Rh%H#jr$!$MFf+#lY/0$4I4J#RUhD#RUnF#mq%=#m1G?$:^]g%ZLf!$j[4I#n7+J$OI@Lp
 'Ug+rX&W5r<`N4pBpp,$47.L$OR7J$OR7LrWs,C%L!:K$k3FK$Od:J#n%(HrX/Z3rX/W2rX/T1r
 !N?.rX/H-#7(_C"qM"G#5nl#$N18T$4."E#RUnF$4$nD$4$tD#7LnG#m^bD#R:V?$O@"C$OR(3$
 k5"#m^nC$OI%F"V(q>#QkD>$OHP8oa*AZ#n%(K#R:\C$O-nD"ptP>$3^hF#m^hF#RL_B$3^hB$
 jm@L#mptG#mUeD$47(H$46Y<rX&T3#7UqD#mUeJ"o&B2&-`CH&-r[P$4.%<$N:A1$N:>8$4$tE#
 K>o!=B/3#T3pU$3gkF#mpqE"V:qH#RLeE#7:bC#mh"IrWsDK#7(YD%0m:G#n.7L"UPVF#nI=K$
 (Fr<`Z6#RLbBq?m-,rsJ`5q[*T:$4.(I"q:_Fq$@96#mq(E#n$t8$5!LM$4.(E"pYJD#RLb@#
 m^_BpBgj.#mL\B$4$hD#RLe9$3LM@%1)n=rX&c7#RLeEq$@93$jm4H$jd17#mUeB#n$tD%L2_9r
 <`E0nHfF)$OR+K"UGLh#mUhD#n.(E$OZJ3pBh-3%1*7G%L<:<$3(>=#m^hB%0d(G!tP)5q$H9m$
 jd:K$k!FK$47(G$4?b=!t#8=8YH(nL("Fr$O@%I"UGM@$O."7$3(A2$1A6$#m^kG$OR4K#71b9$
 P3XQ#mh"J"pteI$3ptI#mL\!$N(51$Mau5#RLbE#7(hIr<`9,r<WH2rX&T3r<X&C#mgqF$3pqJ#
 Rh.G$jR4L#6"o7$4$tF#Rh(F%epA-$Le?4#RgqF$jmCK#7:nH$4@(InI#+!*!ccY$4.%D#mpqH$
 jm=J#7:bD$4."E$4@%E$Om"?!t#;=#lP&2$OI1=#m^eC#RLhG$OR4>#R(MC#RLYCq$@E9":5AB"
 q1kI$4.%;$NCG2$NCD;#R1\@$O[+Gi<]Jkr!E</,6nM_$46qD#m_"K!t>JF#Rq(I$O$kF#mgtI#
 R:_D$O6qD$2t8K#7LtG$O-k@%Li[M$4$tG#mgkD$OdFN$Mt,0$N(22$4Hh>rs8T1":,;?"q1D9q
 $A,J$O6hH"q1eF#m^eC#mptE#RLqJ#mL\C"qM"H#Rh"7#oa6V"q(YD$O@1H$4dCG#mq"F#7(bI#
 mpnD$OZk>!!rB,#7C_@$jm1B$ht#3#RgtJ#R'o/rWrE.q$?d&#7:bC#mUeD#h]Lh"q(_A$k!4Go
 a1R(q$@$.rWs2C#7:hG#mgqG#mq"G"q(_F%0u8,rs8<)q$IN=#RUhD$4%"H#mgqGr<WN2$qm8n%
 Z(H#"UkYE#n%1J$4..InI,@'rsJ`3p^.!/r!EN6$jd7=$NCDC%gNCI$4[7J$O7"G$OI.Klj<_!r
 <iH/!"/K-"q:nK#Rh(HrX&?,r<`9,rsAW0rs9,D#R^kB$j[.H"UPVE#lY29"q1eC$OI(4$2k5"#
 nICK$Od7H$j[1H"UteH$4-//r<X,E#m^eF":>GC#n.(J"9f5@#n74?$69EX#RC_F$j[1G$O@%F$
 O[7I$4@+F$4-tF#mgqHq[*Q9#S%7K%LN[E#m1M@#mgM:"q1eG#n@1Gn-T@0!Y5PD$jbSorsD!t#
 S%"E#R:hC%1*@G&-rUJ$OI%D$Od7E%1!7I#n.+H"V(bE$4I.F%0d(E"UtbH#7(_G#mpqF#mgqI$
 OI%Fq?[-/r!E*)#7C_D%1<IL#5JQE$j[(I"q(YD#RLhF#RC_E"Ut_E#71eF$4@%CrX/]2q$A)I%
 :I#RLkF$47%G$jm:G$k*FJ$4-tG$4$nD$OcY8":PYA%L`";"q:bE":beFoEtR*nHoI+$4[IK$
 OGAk#7CtF$4-nH$2Fr,$2"WA$O-qH$jI1H%1*=K#mgtG$4[=K#Rq(JnI#7'rsJ`5r<iK2!!rQ1r
 sJc6$j[7K#n."I#RUkD#n$V;!Y#>dJ,~>
 %%EndData
 showpage
 %%Trailer
 end
 %%EOF

GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex

➞

Show inline comments

 new file 100644
 %      Tutorial Text for the Detailed Study and Analysis of GPL and LGPL course
+%
 % Copyright (C) 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 % Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
 % any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
 \documentclass[11pt]{book}
 % FILTER_PS:  \input{generate-ps-file}
 % FILTER_PDF: \input{generate-pdf-file}
 % FILTER_HTML: \input{generate-html-file}
 % NOT FOUND \input{one-inch-margins}
 \usepackage{enumerate}
 \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
 %\setlength\parskip{0.7em}
 %\setlength\parindent{0pt}
 \newcommand{\defn}[1]{\emph{#1}}
 %\pagestyle{empty}
 \begin{document}
 \frontmatter
 \begin{titlepage}
 \begin{center}
 %\vspace{.5in}
 \vfill
 \includegraphics{fsf-logo.eps}
 \vfill
 {\Large
 {\sc Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL  } \\
 \vfill
 %\vspace{.7in}
 % \vspace{.3in}
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA \\
 \vspace{.1in}
 Tuesday, 24 August 2004
+}
 %\vspace{.7in}
 \vfill
 {\large
 Bradley M. Kuhn
 Executive Director
 Free Software Foundation
+}
 \vspace{.3in}
 {\large
 Daniel Ravicher
 Senior Counsel
 Free Software Foundation
 President and Executive Director
 Public Patent Foundation
+}
 \end{center}
 \vfill
 {\parindent 0in
 Copyright \copyright{} 2003, 2004 \hspace{.2in} Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 \vspace{.3in}
 Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire document is permitted in
 any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+}
 \end{titlepage}
 \pagestyle{plain}
 \pagenumbering{roman}
 \chapter*{Detailed Study and Analysis of the GPL and LGPL}
 \textit{Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 24 August 2004}
 \begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
 :00 - 09:25 & Registration / Check-in / Continental Breakfast\\
 &\\
 :25 - 09:30 & Welcome\\
 &\\
 :30 - 10:00 & Free Software Principles and the Free Software Definition\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :00 - 10:10 & Preamble of the GNU General Public License (GPL)\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :10 - 10:35 & GPL, \S 0: Definitions, etc.\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :35 - 10:50 & GPL, \S 1: Grant for Verbatim Source Copying\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :50 - 11:00 & Q \& A\\
 &\\
 :00 - 11:10 & Break\\
 &\\
 :10 - 11:55 & Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law\\
 & \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
 &\\
 \end{tabular}
 \begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
 :55 - 12:20 & GPL, \S 2: Grants for Source Derivative Works\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :20 - 12:30 & Q \& A\\
 &\\
 :30 - 14:00 & Lunch with Lecture "Patents and Free Software"\\
 & \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\
 &\\
 :00 - 14:20 & GPL, \S 3 Grants for Creating Binary Derivative Works\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :20 - 14:40 & The Implied Patent Grant in the GPL\\
 & \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
 &\\
 :40 - 15:25 & GPL, \S 4: Termination of License\\
 & GPL, \S 5: Acceptance of License\\
 & GPL, \S 6: Prohibition on Further Restrictions\\
 & GPL, \S 7: Conflicts with other Agreements or Orders\\
 & GPL, \S 8: International Licensing Issues\\
 & GPL, \S 10: Copyright Holder's Exceptions to the GPL\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :25 - 15:35 & GPL, \S 11: Disclaimer of Warranties\\
 & GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability\\
 & \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
 &\\
 :35 - 15:45 & Q \& A\\
 &\\
 :45 - 16:00 & Break\\
 &\\
 :00 - 17:30 & GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)\\
 & \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
 &\\
 :30 - 18:00 & Q \& A\\
 \end{tabular}
 \chapter*{Preface}
 This one-day course gives a section-by-section explanation of the most
 popular Free Software copyright license, the GNU General Public License
 (GNU GPL), and teaches lawyers, software developers, managers and business
 people how to use the GPL (and GPL'd software) successfully in a new Free
 Software business and in existing, successful enterprises.
 Attendees should have a general familiarity with software development
 processes. A vague understanding of how copyright law applies to software
 is also helpful. The tutorial is of most interest to lawyers, software
 developers and managers who run software businesses that modify and/or
 redistribute software under terms of the GNU GPL (or who wish to do so in
 the future), and those who wish to make use of existing GPL'd software in
 their enterprise.
 Upon completion of the tutorial, successful attendees can expect to have
 learned the following:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item The freedom-defending purpose of each term of the GNU GPL
   \item The redistribution options under the GPL
   \item The obligations when modifying GPL'd software
   \item How to build a plan for proper and successful compliance with the GPL
   \item The business advantages that the GPL provides
   \item The most common business models used in conjunction with the GPL
   \item How existing GPL'd software can be used in existing enterprises
   \item The basics of the LGPL and how it differs from the GPL
   \item How best to understand the complexities regarding derivative
         works of software
 \end{itemize}
 \bigskip
 These course materials are merely a summary of the highlights of the
 course presented. Please be aware that during the actual GPL course, class
 discussion supplements this printed curriculum. Simply reading it is
 not equivalent to attending the course.
 \tableofcontents
 \pagebreak
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 % END OF ABSTRACTS SECTION
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 % START OF DAY ONE COURSE
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \mainmatter
 \pagenumbering{arabic}
 \chapter{What Is Free Software?}
 Consideration of the GNU General Public License (herein, abbreviated as
 \defn{GNU GPL} or just \defn{GPL}) must begin by first considering the broader
 world of Free Software. The GPL was not created from a void, rather,
 it was created to embody and defend a set of principles that were set
 forth at the founding of the GNU project and the Free Software Foundation
 (FSF)---the organization that upholds, defends and promotes the philosophy
 of software freedom. A prerequisite for understanding the GPL and its
 terms and conditions is a basic understanding of the principles behind it.
 The GPL is unlike almost all other software licenses in that it is
 designed to defend and uphold these principles.
 \section{The Free Software Definition}
 \label{Free Software Definition}
 The Free Software Definition is set forth in full on FSF's Web site at
 \verb0http://www.fsf.org/0 \verb0philosophy/free-sw.html0. This section
 presents an abbreviated version that will focus on the parts that are most
 pertinent to the terms of the GPL\@.
 A particular program is Free Software if it grants a particular user of
 that program, the following freedoms:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item The freedom to run the program for any purpose
 \item The freedom to change and modify the program
 \item The freedom to copy and share the program
 \item The freedom to share improved versions of the program
 \end{itemize}
 The focus on ``a particular user'' is very pertinent here. It is not
 uncommon for the same version of a specific program to grant these
 freedoms to some subset of its user base, while others have none or only
 some of these freedoms. Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing} talks in
 detail about how this can happen even if a program is released under the
 GPL\@.
 Some people refer to software that gives these freedoms as ``Open
 Source.''  Besides having a different political focus than those who
 call it Free Software,\footnote{The political differences between the
   Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement are documented
   on FSF's Web site at {\tt
     http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html}.}
 those who call the software ``Open Source'' are focused on a side
 issue.  User access to the source code of a program is a prerequisite
 to make use of the freedom to modify. However, the important issue is
 what freedoms are granted in the license of that source code.
 Microsoft's ``Shared Source'' program, for example, gives various
 types of access to source code, but almost none of the freedoms
 described in this section.
 One key issue central to these freedoms is that there are no
 restrictions on how these freedoms can be exercised. Specifically, users
 and programmers can exercise these freedoms noncommercially or
 commercially. Licenses that grant these freedoms for noncommercial
 activities but prohibit them for commercial activities are considered
 non-Free.
 In general, software for which most or all of these freedoms are
 restricted in any way is called ``non-Free Software.''  Typically, the
 term ``proprietary software'' is used more or less interchangeably with
 ``non-Free Software.''  Personally, I tend to use the term ``non-Free
 Software'' to refer to noncommercial software that restricts freedom
 (such as ``shareware'') and ``proprietary software'' to refer to
 commercial software that restricts freedom (such as nearly all of
 Microsoft's and Oracle's offerings).
 The remainder of this section considers each of the four freedoms in
 detail.
 \subsection{The Freedom to Run}
 For a program to be Free Software, the freedom to run the program must
 be completely unrestricted. This means any use for software the user
 can come up with must be permitted. Perhaps, for example, the user
 has discovered an innovative use for a particular program, one
 that the programmer never could have predicted. Such a use must not
 be restricted.
 It was once rare that this freedom was restricted by even proprietary
 software; today it is not so rare. Most End User Licensing Agreements
 (EULAs) that cover most proprietary software restrict some types of
 use.  For example, some versions of Microsoft's FrontPage software
 prohibit use of the software to create Web sites that generate
 negative publicity for Microsoft. Free Software has no such
 restrictions; everyone is free to use Free Software for any purpose
 whatsoever.
 \subsection{The Freedom to Change and Modify}
 Free Software programs allow users to change, modify and adapt the
 software to suit their needs. Access to the source code and related build
 scripts are an essential part of this freedom. Without the source code
 and the ability to build the binary applications from that source, the
 freedom cannot be properly exercised.
 Programmers can take direct benefit from this freedom, and often do.
 However, this freedom is also important to users who are not programmers.
 Users must have the right to exercise this freedom indirectly in both
 commercial and noncommercial settings. For example, users often seek
 noncommercial help with the software on email lists and in users groups.
 When they find such help, they must have the freedom to recruit
 programmers who might altruistically assist them to modify their software.
 The commercial exercise of this freedom is also essential for users. Each
 user, or group of users, must have the right to hire anyone they wish in a
 competitive free market to modify and change the software. This means
 that companies have a right to hire anyone they wish to modify their Free
 Software. Additionally, such companies may contract with other companies
 to commission software modification.
 \subsection{The Freedom to Copy and Share}
 Users may share Free Software in a variety of ways. Free Software
 advocates work to eliminate a fundamental ethical dilemma of the software
 age: choosing between obeying a software license, and friendship (by
 giving away a copy of a program to your friend who likes the software you are
 using). Free Software licenses, therefore, must permit this sort of
 altruistic sharing of software among friends.
 The commercial environment must also have the benefits of this freedom.
 Commercial sharing typically takes the form of selling copies of Free
 Software. Free Software can be sold at any price to anyone. Those who
 redistribute Free Software commercially have the freedom to selectively
 distribute (you can pick your customers) and to set prices at any level
 the redistributor sees fit.
 It is true that many people get copies of Free Software very cheaply (and
 sometimes without charge). The competitive free market of Free Software
 tends to keep prices low and reasonable. However, if someone is willing
 to pay a billion dollars for one copy of the GNU Compiler Collection, such
 a sale is completely permitted.
 Another common instance of commercial sharing is service-oriented
 distribution. For example, a distribution vendor may provide immediate
 security and upgrade distribution via a special network service. Such
 distribution is completely permitted for Free Software.
 (Section~\ref{Business Models} of this tutorial talks in detail about
 various Free Software business models that take advantage of the freedom
 to share commercially.)
 \subsection{The Freedom to Share Improvements}
 The freedom to modify and improve is somewhat empty without the freedom to
 share those improvements. The Free Software community is built on the
 pillar of altruistic sharing of improved Free Software. Inevitably, a
 Free Software project sprouts a mailing list where improvements are shared
 freely among members of the development community. Such noncommercial
 sharing must be permitted for Free Software to thrive.
 Commercial sharing of modified Free Software is equally important.
 For commercial support to exist in a competitive free market, all
 developers --- from single-person contractors to large software
 companies --- must have the freedom to market their services as
 improvers of Free Software. All forms of such service marketing must
 be equally available to all.
 For example, selling support services for Free Software is fully
 permitted. Companies and individuals can offer themselves as ``the place
 to call'' when software fails or does not function properly. For such a
 service to be meaningful, the entity offering that service must have the
 right to modify and improve the software for the customer to correct any
 problems that are beyond mere user error.
 Entities must also be permitted to make available modified versions of
 Free Software. Most Free Software programs have a ``standard version''
 that is made available from the primary developers of the software.
 However, all who have the software have the ``freedom to fork'' --- that
 is, make available nontrivial modified versions of the software on a
 permanent or semi-permanent basis. Such freedom is central to vibrant
 developer and user interaction.
 Companies and individuals have the right to make true value-added versions
 of Free Software. They may use freedom to share improvements to
 distribute distinct versions of Free Software with different functionality
 and features. Furthermore, this freedom can be exercised to serve a
 disenfranchised subset of the user community. If the developers of the
 standard version refuse to serve the needs of some of the software's
 users, other entities have the right to create a long- or short-lived fork
 to serve that sub-community.
 \section{How Does Software Become Free?}
 The last section set forth the freedoms and rights respected by Free
 Software. It presupposed, however, that such software exists. This
 section discusses how Free Software comes into existence. But first, it
 addresses how software can be non-Free in the first place.
 Software can be made proprietary only because it is governed by copyright
 law.\footnote{This statement is a bit of an oversimplification. Patents
   and trade secrets can cover software and make it effectively non-Free,
   one can contract away their rights and freedoms regarding software, or
   source code can be practically obscured in binary-only distribution
   without reliance on any legal system. However, the primary control
   mechanism for software is copyright.} Copyright law, with respect to
 software, governs copying, modifying, and redistributing that
 software.\footnote{Copyright law in general also governs ``public
   performance'' of copyrighted works. There is no generally agreed
   definition for public performance of software and version 2 of the GPL
   does not govern public performance.} By law, the copyright holder (a.k.a.
 the author) of the work controls how others may copy, modify and/or
 distribute the work. For proprietary software, these controls are used to
 prohibit these activities. In addition, proprietary software distributors
 further impede modification in a practical sense by distributing only
 binary code and keeping the source code of the software secret.
 Copyright law is a construction. In the USA, the Constitution permits,
 but does not require, the creation of copyright law as federal
 legislation. Software, since it is an idea fixed in a tangible medium, is
 thus covered by the statues, and is copyrighted by default.
 However, this legal construction is not necessarily natural. Software, in
 its natural state without copyright, is Free Software. In an imaginary
 world with no copyright, the rules would be different. In this
 world, when you received a copy of a program's source code, there would be
 no default legal system to restrict you from sharing it with others,
 making modifications, or redistributing those modified
 versions.\footnote{There could still exist legal systems, like our modern
   patent system, which could restrict the software in other ways.}
 Software in the real world is copyrighted by default and is
 automatically covered by that legal system. However, it is possible
 to move software out of the domain of the copyright system. A
 copyright holder is always permitted to \defn{disclaim} their
 copyright. If copyright is disclaimed, the software is not governed
 by copyright law. Software not governed by copyright is in the
 ``public domain.''
 \subsection{Public Domain Software}
 An author can create public domain software by disclaiming all copyright
 interest on the work. In the USA and other countries that have signed the
 Berne convention on copyright, software is copyrighted automatically by
 the author when she ``fixes the software into a tangible medium.''  In
 the software world, this usually means typing the source code of the
 software into a file.
 However, an author can disclaim that default control given to her by the
 copyright laws. Once this is done, the software is in the public domain
 --- it is no longer covered by copyright. Since it is copyright law that
 allows for various controls on software (i.e., prohibition of copying,
 modification, and redistribution), removing the software from the
 copyright system and placing it into the public domain does yield Free
 Software.
 Carefully note that software in the public domain is \emph{not} licensed
 in any way. It is nonsensical to say software is ``licensed for the
 public domain,'' or any phrase that implies the copyright holder gave
 expressed permission to take actions governed by copyright law.
 By contrast, what the copyright holder has done is renounce her copyright
 controls on the work. The law gave her controls over the work, and she
 has chosen to waive those controls. Software in the public domain is
 absent copyright and absent a license. The software freedoms discussed in
 Section~\ref{Free Software Definition} are all granted because there is no
 legal system in play to take them away.
 \subsection{Why Copyright Free Software?}
 If simply disclaiming copyright on software yields Free Software, then it
 stands to reason that putting software into the public domain is the
 easiest and most straightforward way to produce Free Software. Indeed,
 some major Free Software projects have chosen this method for making their
 software Free. However, most of the Free Software in existence \emph{is}
 copyrighted. In most cases (particularly in those of FSF and the GNU
 Project), this was done due to very careful planning.
 Software released into the public domain does grant freedom to those users
 who receive the standard versions on which the original author disclaimed
 copyright. However, since the work is not copyrighted, any nontrivial
 modification made to the work is fully copyrightable.
 Free Software released into the public domain initially is Free, and
 perhaps some who modify the software choose to place their work into the
 public domain as well. However, over time, some entities will choose to
 proprietarize their modified versions. The public domain body of software
 feeds the proprietary software. The public commons disappears, because
 fewer and fewer entities have an incentive to contribute back to the
 commons. They know that any of their competitors can proprietarize their
 enhancements. Over time, almost no interesting work is left in the public
 domain, because nearly all new work is done by proprietarization.
 A legal mechanism is needed to redress this problem. FSF was in fact
 originally created primarily as a legal entity to defend software freedom,
 and that work of defending software freedom is a substantial part of
 its work today. Specifically because of this ``embrace, proprietarize and
 extend'' cycle, FSF made a conscious choice to copyright its Free Software,
 and then license it under ``copyleft'' terms. Many, including the
 developers of the kernel named Linux, have chosen to follow this paradigm.
 Copyleft is a legal strategy to defend, uphold and propagate software
 freedom. The basic technique of copyleft is as follows: copyright the
 software, license it under terms that give all the software freedoms, but
 use the copyright law controls to ensure that all who receive a copy of
 the software have equal rights and freedom. In essence, copyleft grants
 freedom, but forbids others to forbid that freedom to anyone else along
 the distribution and modification chains.
 Copyleft is a general concept. Much like ideas for what a computer might
 do must be \emph{implemented} by a program that actually does the job, so
 too must copyleft be implemented in some concrete legal structure.
 ``Share and share alike'' is a phrase that is used often enough to explain the
 concept behind copyleft, but to actually make it work in the real world, a
 true implementation in legal text must exist. The GPL is the primary
 implementation of copyleft in copyright licensing language.
 \section{An Ecosystem of Equality}
 The GPL uses copyright law to defend freedom and equally ensure users'
 rights. This ultimately creates an ecosystem of equality for both
 business and noncommercial users.
 \subsection{The Noncommercial Ecosystem}
 A GPL'd code base becomes a center of a vibrant development and user
 community. Traditionally, volunteers, operating noncommercially out of
 keen interest or ``scratch an itch'' motivations, produce initial versions
 of a GPL'd system. Because of the efficient distribution channels of the
 Internet, any useful GPL'd system is adopted quickly by noncommercial
 users.
 Fundamentally, the early release and quick distribution of the software
 gives birth to a thriving noncommercial community. Users and developers
 begin sharing bug reports and bug fixes across a shared intellectual
 commons. Users can trust the developers, because they know that if the
 developers fail to address their needs or abandon the project, the GPL
 ensures that someone else has the right to pick up development.
 Developers know that the users cannot redistribute their software without
 passing along the rights granted by GPL, so they are assured that every
 one of their users is treated equally.
 Because of the symmetry and fairness inherent in GPL'd distribution,
 nearly every GPL'd package in existence has a vibrant noncommercial user
 and developer base.
 \subsection{The Commercial Ecosystem}
 By the same token, nearly all established GPL'd software systems have a
 vibrant commercial community. Nearly every GPL'd system that has gained
 wide adoption from noncommercial users and developers eventually begins
 to fuel a commercial system around that software.
 For example, consider the Samba file server system that allows Unix-like
 systems (including GNU/Linux) to serve files to Microsoft Windows systems.
 Two graduate students originally developed Samba in their spare time and
 it was deployed noncommercially in academic environments. However, very
 soon for-profit companies discovered that the software could work for them
 as well, and their system administrators began to use it in place of
 Microsoft Windows NT file-servers. This served to lower the cost of
 running such servers by orders of magnitude. There was suddenly room in
 Windows file-server budgets to hire contractors to improve Samba. Some of
 the first people hired to do such work were those same two graduate
 students who originally developed the software.
 The noncommercial users, however, were not concerned when these two
 fellows began collecting paychecks off of their GPL'd work. They knew
 that because of the nature of the GPL that improvements that were
 distributed in the commercial environment could easily be folded back into
 the standard version. Companies are not permitted to proprietarize
 Samba, so the noncommercial users, and even other commercial users are
 safe in the knowledge that the software freedom ensured by GPL will remain
 protected.
 Commercial developers also work in concert with noncommercial
 developers. Those two now-long-since graduated students continue to
 contribute to Samba altruistically, but also get paid work doing it.
 Priorities change when a client is in the mix, but all the code is
 contributed back to the standard version. Meanwhile, many other
 individuals have gotten involved noncommercially as developers,
 because they want to ``cut their teeth on Free Software,'' or because
 the problems interest them. When they get good at it, perhaps they
 will move on to another project, or perhaps they will become
 commercial developers of the software themselves.
 No party is a threat to another in the GPL software scenario because
 everyone is on equal ground. The GPL protects rights of the commercial
 and noncommercial contributors and users equally. The GPL creates trust,
 because it is a level playing field for all.
 \subsection{Law Analogy}
 In his introduction to Stallman's \emph{Free Software, Free Society},
 Lawrence Lessig draws an interesting analogy between the law and Free
 Software. He argues that the laws of a free society must be protected
 much like the GPL protects software. So that I might do true justice to
 Lessig's argument, I quote it verbatim:
 \begin{quotation}
 A ``free society'' is regulated by law. But there are limits that any free
 society places on this regulation through law: No society that kept its
 laws secret could ever be called free. No government that hid its
 regulations from the regulated could ever stand in our tradition. Law
 controls. But it does so justly only when visibly. And law is visible
 only when its terms are knowable and controllable by those it regulates,
 or by the agents of those it regulates (lawyers, legislatures).
 This condition on law extends beyond the work of a legislature. Think
 about the practice of law in American courts. Lawyers are hired by their
 clients to advance their clients' interests. Sometimes that interest is
 advanced through litigation. In the course of this litigation, lawyers
 write briefs. These briefs in turn affect opinions written by judges.
 These opinions decide who wins a particular case, or whether a certain law
 can stand consistently with a constitution.
 All the material in this process is free in the sense that Stallman means.
 Legal briefs are open and free for others to use. The arguments are
 transparent (which is different from saying they are good), and the
 reasoning can be taken without the permission of the original lawyers.
 The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs. They can be
 copied and integrated into another brief or opinion. The ``source code''
 for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone
 to take. And take lawyers do---for it is a measure of a great brief that
 it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before. The
 source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
 This economy of free code (and here I mean free legal code) doesn't starve
 lawyers. Law firms have enough incentive to produce great briefs even
 though the stuff they build can be taken and copied by anyone else. The
 lawyer is a craftsman; his or her product is public. Yet the crafting is
 not charity. Lawyers get paid; the public doesn't demand such work
 without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to
 the earlier.
 We could imagine a legal practice that was different---briefs and
 arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not
 the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one
 else. Regulation that operated without explaining its rule.
 We could imagine this society, but we could not imagine calling it
 ``free.''  Whether or not the incentives in such a society would be better
 or more efficiently allocated, such a society could not be known as free.
 The ideals of freedom, of life within a free society, demand more than
 efficient application. Instead, openness and transparency are the
 constraints within which a legal system gets built, not options to be
 added if convenient to the leaders. Life governed by software code should
 be no less.
 Code writing is not litigation. It is better, richer, more
 productive. But the law is an obvious instance of how creativity and
 incentives do not depend upon perfect control over the products
 created. Like jazz, or novels, or architecture, the law gets built
 upon the work that went before. This adding and changing is what
 creativity always is. And a free society is one that assures that its
 most important resources remain free in just this sense.\footnote{This
 quotation is Copyright \copyright{} 2002, Lawrence Lessig. It is
 licensed under the terms of
 \texttt{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/}{the ``Attribution
 License'' version 1.0} or any later version as published by Creative
 Commons.}
 \end{quotation}
 In essence, lawyers are paid to service the shared commons of legal
 infrastructure. Few citizens defend themselves in court or write their
 own briefs (even though they are legally permitted to do so) because
 everyone would prefer to have an expert do that job.
 The Free Software economy is a market ripe for experts. It
 functions similarly to other well established professional fields like the
 law. The GPL, in turn, serves as the legal scaffolding that permits the
 creation of this vibrant commercial and noncommercial Free Software
 economy.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Running Software and Verbatim Copying}
 \label{run-and-verbatim}
 This chapter begins the deep discussion of the details of the terms of
 GPL\@. In this chapter, we consider the first two sections: GPL \S\S
 --2. These are the straightforward sections of the GPL that define the
 simplest rights that the user receives.
 \section{GPL \S 0: Freedom to Run}
 \label{GPLs0}
 \S 0, the opening section of GPL, sets forth that the work is governed by
 copyright law. It specifically points out that it is the ``copyright
 holder'' who decides if a work is licensed under its terms and explains
 how the copyright holder might indicate this fact.
 A bit more subtly, \S 0 makes an inference that copyright law is the only
 system under which it is governed. Specifically, it states:
 \begin{quote}
 Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
 covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
 \end{quote}
 In essence, the license governs \emph{only} those activities, and all other
 activities are unrestricted, provided that no other agreements trump GPL
 (which they cannot; see Sections~\ref{GPLs6} and~\ref{GPLs7}). This is
 very important, because the Free Software community heavily supports
 users' rights to ``fair use'' and ``unregulated use'' of copyrighted
 material. GPL asserts through this clause that it supports users' rights
 to fair and unregulated uses.
 Fair use of copyrighted material is an established legal doctrine that
 permits certain activities. Discussion of the various types of fair
 use activity are beyond the scope of this tutorial. However, one
 important example of fair use is the right to quote a very few lines
 (less than seven or so) and reuse them as you would with or without
 licensing restrictions.
 Fair use is a doctrine established by the courts or by statute. By
 contrast, unregulated uses are those that are not covered by the statue
 nor determined by a court to be covered, but are common and enjoyed by
 many users. An example of unregulated use is reading a printout of the
 program's source code like an instruction book for the purpose of learning
 how to be a better programmer.
 \medskip
 Thus, the GPL protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
 not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPL ensures the freedom
 to run specifically by stating the following:
 \begin{quote}
 ''The act of running the Program is not restricted.''
 \end{quote}
 Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
 \medskip
 The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
 throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
 the Program.''  The reason this definition is particularly interesting is
 not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but
 because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
 The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a
 definition of ``derivative work.''  In fact, it would be incorrect and
 problematic if the GPL attempted to define this. A copyright license, in
 fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This
 matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it.
 It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear
 and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative
 software work under copyright law. However, no copyright license --- not
 even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court
 opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.
 \section{GPL \S 1: Verbatim Copying}
 \label{GPLs1}
 GPL \S 1 covers the matter of redistributing the source code of a program
 exactly as it was received. This section is quite straightforward.
 However, there are a few details worth noting here.
 The phrase ``in any medium'' is important. This, for example, gives the
 freedom to publish a book that is the printed copy of the program's source
 code. It also allows for changes in the medium of distribution. Some
 vendors may ship Free Software on a CD, but others may place it right on
 the hard drive of a pre-installed computer. Any such redistribution media
 is allowed.
 Preservation of copyright notice and license notifications are mentioned
 specifically in \S 1. These are in some ways the most important part of
 the redistribution, which is why they are mentioned by name. The GPL
 always strives to make it abundantly clear to anyone who receives the
 software what its license is. The goal is to make sure users know their
 rights and freedoms under GPL, and to leave no reason that someone would be
 surprised the software she got was licensed under GPL\@. Thus
 throughout the GPL, there are specific references to the importance of
 notifying others down the distribution chain that they have rights under
 GPL.
 Also mentioned by name is the warranty disclaimer. Most people today do
 not believe that software comes with any warranty. Notwithstanding the
 proposed state-level UCITA bills (which have never obtained widespread
 adoption), there are few or no implied warranties with software.
 However, just to be on the safe side, GPL clearly disclaims them, and the
 GPL requires redistributors to keep the disclaimer very visible. (See
 Sections~\ref{GPLs11} and~\ref{GPLs12} of this tutorial for more on GPL's
 warranty disclaimers.)
 Note finally that \S 1 begins to set forth the important defense of
 commercial freedom. \S 1 clearly states that in the case of verbatim
 copies, one may make money. Redistributors are fully permitted to charge
 for the redistribution of copies of Free Software. In addition, they may
 provide the warranty protection that the GPL disclaims as an additional
 service for a fee. (See Section~\ref{Business Models} for more discussion
 on making a profit from Free Software redistribution.)
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law}
 We digress for this chapter from our discussion of GPL's exact text to
 consider the matter of derivative works --- a concept that we must
 understand fully before considering \S\S 2--3 of GPL\@. GPL, and Free
 Software licensing in general, relies critically on the concept of
 ``derivative work'' since software that is ``independent,'' (i.e., not
 ``derivative'') of Free Software need not abide by the terms of the
 applicable Free Software license. As much is required by \S 106 of the
 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. \S 106 (2002), and admitted by Free Software
 licenses, such as the GPL, which (as we have seen) states in \S 0 that ``a
 `work based on the Program' means either the Program or any derivative
 work under copyright law.'' It is being a derivative work of Free Software
 that triggers the necessity to comply with the terms of the Free Software
 license under which the original work is distributed. Therefore, one is
 left to ask, just what is a ``derivative work''? The answer to that
 question differs depending on which court is being asked.
 The analysis in this chapter sets forth the differing definitions of
 derivative work by the circuit courts. The broadest and most
 established definition of derivative work for software is the
 abstraction, filtration, and comparison test (``the AFC test'') as
 created and developed by the Second Circuit. Some circuits, including
 the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit, have either adopted narrower
 versions of the AFC test or have expressly rejected the AFC test in
 favor of a narrower standard. Further, several other circuits have yet
 to adopt any definition of derivative work for software.
 As an introductory matter, it is important to note that literal copying of
 a significant portion of source code is not always sufficient to establish
 that a second work is a derivative work of an original
 program. Conversely, a second work can be a derivative work of an original
 program even though absolutely no copying of the literal source code of
 the original program has been made. This is the case because copyright
 protection does not always extend to all portions of a program's code,
 while, at the same time, it can extend beyond the literal code of a
 program to its non-literal aspects, such as its architecture, structure,
 sequence, organization, operational modules, and computer-user interface.
 \section{The Copyright Act}
 The copyright act is of little, if any, help in determining the definition
 of a derivative work of software. However, the applicable provisions do
 provide some, albeit quite cursory, guidance. Section 101 of the Copyright
 Act sets forth the following definitions:
 \begin{quotation}
 A ``computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used
 directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain
 result.
 A ``derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more preexisting works,
 such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
 fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
 reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work
 may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial
 revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a
 whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ``derivative work.''
 \end{quotation}
 These are the only provisions in the Copyright Act relevant to the
 determination of what constitutes a derivative work of a computer
 program. Another provision of the Copyright Act that is also relevant to
 the definition of derivative work is \S 102(b), which reads as follows:
 \begin{quotation}
 In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship
 extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,
 concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
 described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
 \end{quotation}
 Therefore, before a court can ask whether one program is a derivative work
 of another program, it must be careful not to extend copyright protection
 to any ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation,
 concepts, principles, or discoveries contained in the original program. It
 is the implementation of this requirement to ``strip out'' unprotectable
 elements that serves as the most frequent issue over which courts
 disagree.
 \section{Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison Test}
 As mentioned above, the AFC test for determining whether a computer
 program is a derivative work of an earlier program was created by the
 Second Circuit and has since been adopted in the Fifth, Tenth, and
 Eleventh Circuits. Computer Associates Intl., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982
 F.2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992); Engineering Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural
 Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335 (5th Cir. 1994); Kepner-Tregoe,
 Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc., 12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 1994); Gates
 Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indust., Ltd., 9 F.3d 823 (10th Cir. 1993);
 Mitel, Inc. v. Iqtel, Inc., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997); 5 Bateman
 v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996); and, Mitek Holdings,
 Inc. v. Arce Engineering Co., Inc., 89 F.3d 1548 (11th Cir. 1996).
 Under the AFC test, a court first abstracts from the original program its
 constituent structural parts. Then, the court filters from those
 structural parts all unprotectable portions, including incorporated ideas,
 expression that is necessarily incidental to those ideas, and elements
 that are taken from the public domain. Finally, the court compares any and
 all remaining kernels of creative expression to the structure of the
 second program to determine whether the software programs at issue are
 substantially similar so as to warrant a finding that one is the
 derivative work of the other.
 Often, the courts that apply the AFC test will perform a quick initial
 comparison between the entirety of the two programs at issue in order to
 help determine whether one is a derivative work of the other. Such a
 holistic comparison, although not a substitute for the full application of
 the AFC test, sometimes reveals a pattern of copying that is not otherwise
 obvious from the application of the AFC test when, as discussed below,
 only certain components of the original program are compared to the second
 program. If such a pattern is revealed by the quick initial comparison,
 the court is more likely to conclude that the second work is indeed a
 derivative of the original.
 \subsection{Abstraction}
 The first step courts perform under the AFC test is separation of the
 work's ideas from its expression. In a process akin to reverse
 engineering, the courts dissect the original program to isolate each level
 of abstraction contained within it. Courts have stated that the
 abstractions step is particularly well suited for computer programs
 because it breaks down software in a way that mirrors the way it is
 typically created. However, the courts have also indicated that this step
 of the AFC test requires substantial guidance from experts, because it is
 extremely fact and situation specific.
 By way of example, one set of abstraction levels is, in descending order
 of generality, as follows: the main purpose, system architecture, abstract
 data types, algorithms and data structures, source code, and object
 code. As this set of abstraction levels shows, during the abstraction step
 of the AFC test, the literal elements of the computer program, namely the
 source and object code, are defined as particular levels of
 abstraction. Further, the source and object code elements of a program are
 not the only elements capable of forming the basis for a finding that a
 second work is a derivative of the program. In some cases, in order to
 avoid a lengthy factual inquiry by the court, the owner of the copyright in
 the original work will submit its own list of what it believes to be the
 protected elements of the original program. In those situations, the court
 will forgo performing its own abstraction, and proceed to the second step of
 the AFC test.
 \subsection{Filtration}
 The most difficult and controversial part of the AFC test is the second
 step, which entails the filtration of protectable expression contained in
 the original program from any unprotectable elements nestled therein. In
 determining which elements of a program are unprotectable, courts employ a
 myriad of rules and procedures to sift from a program all the portions
 that are not eligible for copyright protection.
 First, as set forth in \S 102(b) of the Copyright Act, any and all ideas
 embodied in the program are to be denied copyright protection. However,
 implementing this rule is not as easy as it first appears. The courts
 readily recognize the intrinsic difficulty in distinguishing between ideas
 and expression and that, given the varying nature of computer programs,
 doing so will be done on an ad hoc basis. The first step of the AFC test,
 the abstraction, exists precisely to assist in this endeavor by helping
 the court separate out all the individual elements of the program so that
 they can be independently analyzed for their expressive nature.
 A second rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of
 the AFC test is the doctrine of merger, which denies copyright protection
 to expression necessarily incidental to the idea being expressed. The
 reasoning behind this doctrine is that when there is only one way to
 express an idea, the idea and the expression merge, meaning that the
 expression cannot receive copyright protection due to the bar on copyright
 protection extending to ideas. In applying this doctrine, a court will ask
 whether the program's use of particular code or structure is necessary for
 the efficient implementation of a certain function or process. If so, then
 that particular code or structure is not protected by copyright and, as a
 result, it is filtered away from the remaining protectable expression.
 A third rule applied by the courts in performing the filtration step of
 the AFC test is the doctrine of scenes a faire, which denies copyright
 protection to elements of a computer program that are dictated by external
 factors. Such external factors can include:
 \begin{itemize}
   \item The mechanical
 specifications of the computer on which a particular program is intended
 to operate
   \item Compatibility requirements of other programs with which a
 program is designed to operate in conjunction
   \item Computer manufacturers'
 design standards
   \item Demands of the industry being serviced, and
 widely accepted programming practices within the computer industry
 \end{itemize}
 Any code or structure of a program that was shaped predominantly in
 response to these factors is filtered out and not protected by
 copyright. Lastly, elements of a computer program are also to be filtered
 out if they were taken from the public domain or fail to have sufficient
 originality to merit copyright protection.
 Portions of the source or object code of a computer program are rarely
 filtered out as unprotectable elements. However, some distinct parts of
 source and object code have been found unprotectable. For example,
 constant s, the invariable integers comprising part of formulas used to
 perform calculations in a program, are unprotectable. Further, although
 common errors found in two programs can provide strong evidence of
 copying, they are not afforded any copyright protection over and above the
 protection given to the expression containing them.
 \subsection{Comparison}
 The third and final step of the AFC test entails a comparison of the
 original program's remaining protectable expression to a second
 program. The issue will be whether any of the protected expression is
 copied in the second program and, if so, what relative importance the
 copied portion has with respect to the original program overall. The
 ultimate inquiry is whether there is ``substantial'' similarity between
 the protected elements of the original program and the potentially
 derivative work. The courts admit that this process is primarily
 qualitative rather than quantitative and is performed on a case-by-case
 basis. In essence, the comparison is an ad hoc determination of whether
 the protectable elements of the original program that are contained in the
 second work are significant or important parts of the original program. If
 so, then the second work is a derivative work of the first. If, however,
 the amount of protectable elements copied in the second work are so small
 as to be de minimis, then the second work is not a derivative work of the
 original.
 \section{Analytic Dissection Test}
 The Ninth Circuit has adopted the analytic dissection test to determine
 whether one program is a derivative work of another. Apple Computer,
 Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). The analytic
 dissection test first considers whether there are substantial similarities
 in both the ideas and expressions of the two works at issue. Once the
 similar features are identified, analytic dissection is used to determine
 whether any of those similar features are protected by copyright. This
 step is the same as the filtration step in the AFC test. After identifying
 the copyrightable similar features of the works, the court then decides
 whether those features are entitled to ``broad'' or ``thin''
 protection. ``Thin'' protection is given to non-copyrightable facts or
 ideas that are combined in a way that affords copyright protection only
 from their alignment and presentation, while ``broad'' protection is given
 to copyrightable expression itself. Depending on the degree of protection
 afforded, the court then sets the appropriate standard for a subjective
 comparison of the works to determine whether, as a whole, they are
 sufficiently similar to support a finding that one is a derivative work of
 the other. ``Thin'' protection requires the second work be virtually
 identical in order to be held a derivative work of an original, while
 ``broad'' protection requires only a ``substantial similarity.''
 \section{No Protection for ``Methods of Operation''}
 The First Circuit expressly rejected the AFC test and, instead, takes a
 much narrower view of the meaning of derivative work for software. The
 First Circuit holds that ``method of operation,'' as used in \S 102(b) of
 the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate
 computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Intl., Inc., 49 F.3d 807
 (1st Cir. 1995). More specifically, the court held that a menu command
 hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not
 merely explain and present the programs functional capabilities to the
 user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and
 controlled. As a result, under the First Circuits test, literal copying
 of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot
 form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of
 another. It is also reasonable to expect that the First Circuit will read
 the unprotectable elements set forth in \S 102(b) broadly, and, as such,
 promulgate a definition of derivative work that is much narrower than that
 which exists under the AFC test.
 \section{No Test Yet Adopted}
 Several circuits, most notably the Fourth and Seventh, have yet to
 declare their definition of derivative work and whether or not the
 AFC, Analytic Dissection, or some other test best fits their
 interpretation of copyright law. Therefore, uncertainty exists with
 respect to determining the extent to which a software program is a
 derivative work of another in those circuits. However, one may presume
 that they would give deference to the AFC test since it is by far the
 majority rule amongst those circuits that have a standard for defining
 a software derivative work.
 \section{Cases Applying Software Derivative Work Analysis}
 In the preeminent case regarding the definition of a derivative work for
 software, Computer Associates v. Altai, the plaintiff alleged that its
 program, Adapter, which was used to handle the differences in operating
 system calls and services, was infringed by the defendant's competitive
 program, Oscar. About 30\% of Oscar was literally the same code as
 that in Adapter. After the suit began, the defendant rewrote those
 portions of Oscar that contained Adapter code in order to produce a new
 version of Oscar that was functionally competitive with Adapter, without
 have any literal copies of its code. Feeling slighted still, the
 plaintiff alleged that even the second version of Oscar, despite having no
 literally copied code, also infringed its copyrights. In addressing that
 question, the Second Circuit promulgated the AFC test.
 In abstracting the various levels of the program, the court noted a
 similarity between the two programs' parameter lists and macros. However,
 following the filtration step of the AFC test, only a handful of the lists
 and macros were protectable under copyright law because they were either
 in the public domain or required by functional demands on the
 program. With respect to the handful of parameter lists and macros that
 did qualify for copyright protection, after performing the comparison step
 of the AFC test, it was reasonable for the district court to conclude that
 they did not warrant a finding of infringement given their relatively minor
 contribution to the program as a whole. Likewise, the similarity between
 the organizational charts of the two programs was not substantial enough
 to support a finding of infringement because they were too simple and
 obvious to contain any original expression.
 Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few cases involving a highly
 detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve
 clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of
 the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.
 However, no cases involving Free Software licensing have ever gone to
 court. As Free Software becomes an ever-increasingly important part of
 the economy, it remains to be seen if battle lines will be
 drawn over whether particular programs infringe the rights of Free
 Software developers or whether the entire community, including industry,
 adopts norms avoiding such risk.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Modified Source and Binary Distribution}
 \label{source-and-binary}
 In this chapter, we discuss the two core sections that define the rights
 and obligations for those who modify, improve, and/or redistribute GPL'd
 software. These sections, \S\S 2--3, define the central core rights and
 requirements of GPL\@.
 \section{GPL \S 2: Share and Share Alike}
 For many, this is where the ``magic'' happens that defends software
 freedom along the distribution chain. \S 2 is the only place in the GPL
 that governs the modification controls of copyright law. If someone
 modifies a GPL'd program, she is bound in the making those changes by \S
 . The goal here is to ensure that the body of GPL'd software, as it
 continues and develops, remains Free as in freedom.
 To achieve that goal, \S 2 first sets forth that the rights of
 redistribution of modified versions are the same as those for verbatim
 copying, as presented in \S 1. Therefore, the details of charging,
 keeping copyright notices intact, and other \S 1 provisions are in tact
 here as well. However, there are three additional requirements.
 The first (\S 2(a)) requires that modified files carry ``prominent
 notices'' explaining what changes were made and the date of such
 changes. The goal here is not to put forward some specific way of
 marking changes nor controlling the process of how changes get made.
 Primarily, \S 2(a) seeks to ensure that those receiving modified
 versions know the history of changes to the software. For some users,
 it is important to know that they are using the standard version of
 program, because while there are many advantages to using a fork,
 there are a few disadvantages. Users should be informed about the
 historical context of the software version they use, so that they can
 make proper support choices. Finally, \S 2(a) serves an academic
 purpose --- ensuring that future developers can use a diachronic
 approach to understand the software.
 \medskip
 The second requirement (\S 2(b)) contains the four short lines that embody
 the legal details of ``share and share alike.''  These 46 words are
 considered by some to be the most worthy of careful scrutiny because \S
 (b) can be a source of great confusion when not properly understood.
 In considering \S 2(b), first note the qualifier: it only applies to
 derivative works that ``you distribute or publish.''  Despite years of
 education efforts by FSF on this matter, many still believe that modifiers
 of GPL'd software are required by the license to publish or otherwise
 share their changes. On the contrary, \S 2(b) {\bf does not apply if} the
 changes are never distributed. Indeed, the freedom to make private,
 personal, unshared changes to software for personal use only should be
 protected and defended.\footnote{FSF does maintain that there is an {\bf
     ethical} obligation to redistribute changes that are generally useful,
   and often encourages companies and individuals to do so. However, there
   is a clear distinction between what one {\bf ought} to do and what one
   {\bf must} do.}
 Next, we again encounter the same matter that appears in \S 0, in the
 following text:
 \begin{quote}
 ``...that in whole or part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof.''
 \end{quote}
 Again, the GPL relies here on what the copyright law says is a derivative
 work. If, under copyright law, the modified version ``contains or is
 derived from'' the GPL'd software, then the requirements of \S 2(b)
 apply. The GPL invokes its control as a copyright license over the
 modification of the work in combination with its control over distribution
 of the work.
 The final clause of \S 2(b) describes what the licensee must do if she is
 distributing or publishing a work that is deemed a derivative work under
 copyright law --- namely, the following:
 \begin{quote}
 [The work must] be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
 under the terms of this License.
 \end{quote}
 That is probably the most tightly-packed phrase in all of the GPL\@.
 Consider each subpart carefully.
 The work ``as a whole'' is what is to be licensed. This is an important
 point that \S 2 spends an entire paragraph explaining; thus this phrase is
 worthy of a lengthy discussion here. As a programmer modifies a software
 program, she generates new copyrighted material --- fixing expressions of
 ideas into the tangible medium of electronic file storage. That
 programmer is indeed the copyright holder of those new changes. However,
 those changes are part and parcel to the original work distributed to
 the programmer under GPL\@. Thus, the license of the original work
 affects the license of the new whole derivative work.
 % {\cal I}
 \newcommand{\gplusi}{$\mathcal{G\!\!+\!\!I}$}
 \newcommand{\worki}{$\mathcal{I}$}
 \newcommand{\workg}{$\mathcal{G}$}
 \label{separate-and-independent}
 It is certainly possible to take an existing independent work (called
 \worki{}) and combine it with a GPL'd program (called \workg{}). The
 license of \worki{}, when it is distributed as a separate and independent
 work, remains the prerogative of the copyright holder of \worki{}.
 However, when \worki{} is combined with \workg{}, it produces a new work
 that is the combination of the two (called \gplusi{}). The copyright of
 this combined work, \gplusi{}, is held by the original copyright
 holder of each of the two works.
 In this case, \S 2 lays out the terms by which \gplusi{} may be
 distributed and copied. By default, under copyright law, the copyright
 holder of \worki{} would not have been permitted to distribute \gplusi{};
 copyright law forbids it without the expressed permission of the copyright
 holder of \workg{}. (Imagine, for a moment, if \workg{} were a Microsoft
 product --- would they give you permission to create and distribute
 \gplusi{} without paying them a hefty sum?)  The license of \workg{}, the
 GPL, sets forth ahead of time options for the copyright holder of \worki{}
 who may want to create and distribute \gplusi{}. This pregranted
 permission to create and distribute derivative works, provided the terms
 of GPL are upheld, goes far above and beyond the permissions that one
 would get with a typical work not covered by a copyleft license. Thus, to
 say that this restriction is any way unreasonable is simply ludicrous.
 \medskip
 The next phrase of note in \S 2(b) is ``licensed...at no charge.''
 This is a source of great confusion to many. Not a month goes by that
 FSF does not receive an email that claims to point out ``a
 contradiction in GPL'' because \S 2 says that redistributors cannot
 charge for modified versions of GPL'd software, but \S 1 says that
 they can. The ``at no charge'' does not prohibit redistributors from
 charging when performing the acts governed by copyright
 law,\footnote{Recall that you could by default charge for any acts not
 governed by copyright law, because the license controls are confined
 by copyright.} but rather that they cannot charge a fee for the
 \emph{license itself}. In other words, redistributors of (modified
 and unmodified) GPL'd works may charge any amount they choose for
 performing the modifications on contract or the act of transferring
 the copy to the customer, but they may not charge a separate licensing
 fee for the software.
 \S 2(b) further states that the software must ``be licensed...to all
 third parties.''  This too has led to some confusions, and feeds the
 misconception mentioned earlier --- that all modified versions must made
 available to the public at large. However, the text here does not say
 that. Instead, it says that the licensing under terms of the GPL must
 extend to anyone who might, through the distribution chain, receive a copy
 of the software. Distribution to all third parties is not mandated here,
 but \S 2(b) does require redistributors to license the derivative works in
 a way that extends to all third parties who may ultimately receive a
 copy of the software.
 In summary, \S 2(b) says what terms under which the third parties must
 receive this no-charge license. Namely, they receive it ``under the terms
 of this License,'' the GPL. When an entity \emph{chooses} to redistribute
 a derivative work of GPL'd software, the license of that whole derivative
 work must be GPL and only GPL\@. In this manner, \S 2(b) dovetails nicely
 with \S 6 (as discussed in Section~\ref{GPLs6} of this tutorial).
 \medskip
 The final paragraph of \S 2 is worth special mention. It is possible and
 quite common to aggregate various software programs together on one
 distribution medium. Computer manufacturers do this when they ship a
 pre-installed hard drive, and GNU/Linux distribution vendors do this to
 give a one-stop CD or URL for a complete operating system with necessary
 applications. The GPL very clearly permits such ``mere aggregation'' with
 programs under any license. Despite what you hear from its critics, the
 GPL is nothing like a virus, not only because the GPL is good for you and
 a virus is bad for you, but also because simple contact with a GPL'd
 code-base does not impact the license of other programs. Actual effort
 must be expended by a programmer to cause a work to fall under the terms
 of the GPL. Redistributors are always welcome to simply ship GPL'd
 software alongside proprietary software or other unrelated Free Software,
 as long as the terms of GPL are adhered to for those packages that are
 truly GPL'd.
 \section{GPL \S 3: Producing Binaries}
 \label{GPL-Section-3}
 % FIXME: need name of a novelist who writes very obscurely and obliquely.
 Software is a strange beast when compared to other copyrightable works.
 It is currently impossible to make a film or a book that can be truly
 obscured. Ultimately, the full text of a novel, even one written by
 William Faulkner, must presented to the reader as words in some
 human-readable language so that they can enjoy the work. A film, even one
 directed by David Lynch, must be perceptible by human eyes and ears to
 have any value.
 Software is not so. While the source code, the human-readable
 representation of software is of keen interest to programmers, users and
 programmers alike cannot make the proper use of software in that
 human-readable form. Binary code --- the ones and zeros that the computer
 can understand --- must be predicable and attainable for the software to
 be fully useful. Without the binaries, be they in object or executable
 form, the software serves only the didactic purposes of computer science.
 Under copyright law, binary representations of the software are simply
 derivative works of the source code. Applying a systematic process (i.e.,
 ``compilation'') to a work of source code yields binary code. The binary
 code is now a new work of expression fixed in the tangible medium of
 electronic file storage.
 Therefore, for GPL'd software to be useful, the GPL, since it governs the
 rules for creation of derivative works, must grant permission for the
 generation of binaries. Furthermore, notwithstanding the relative
 popularity of source-based GNU/Linux distributions like Gentoo, users find
 it extremely convenient to receive distribution of binary software. Such
 distribution is the redistribution of derivative works of the software's
 source code. \S 3 addresses the matter of creation and distribution of
 binary versions.
 Under \S 3, binary versions may be created and distributed under the
 terms of \S\S 1--2, so all the material previously discussed applies
 here. However, \S 3 must go a bit further. Access to the software's
 source code is an incontestable prerequisite for the exercise of the
 fundamental freedoms to modify and improve the software. Making even
 the most trivial changes to a software program at the binary level is
 effectively impossible. \S 3 must ensure that the binaries are never
 distributed without the source code, so that these freedoms are passed
 through the distribution chain.
 \S 3 permits distribution of binaries, and then offers three options for
 distribution of source code along with binaries. The most common and the
 least complicated is the option given under \S 3(a).
 \S 3(a) offers the option to directly accompany the source code alongside
 the distribution of the binaries. This is by far the most convenient
 option for most distributors, because it means that the source-code
 provision obligations are fully completed at the time of binary
 distribution (more on that later).
 Under \S 3(a), the source code provided must be the ``corresponding source
 code.''  Here ``corresponding'' primarily means that the source code
 provided must be that code used to produce the binaries being distributed.
 That source code must also be ``complete.''  A later paragraph of \S 3
 explains in detail what is meant by ``complete.''  In essence, it is all
 the material that a programmer of average skill would need to actually use
 the source code to produce the binaries she has received. Complete source
 is required so that, if the licensee chooses, she should be able to
 exercise her freedoms to modify and redistribute changes. Without the
 complete source, it would not be possible to make changes that were
 actually directly derived from the version received.
 Furthermore, \S 3 is defending against a tactic that has in fact been
 seen in FSF's GPL enforcement. Under GPL, if you pay a high price for
 a copy of GPL'd binaries (which comes with corresponding source, of
 course), you have the freedom to redistribute that work at any fee you
 choose, or not at all. Sometimes, companies attempt a GPL-violating
 cozenage whereby they produce very specialized binaries (perhaps for
 an obscure architecture). They then give source code that does
 correspond, but withhold the ``incantations'' and build plans they
 used to make that source compile into the specialized binaries.
 Therefore, \S 3 requires that the source code include ``meta-material'' like
 scripts, interface definitions, and other material that is used to
 ``control compilation and installation'' of the binaries. In this
 manner, those further down the distribution chain are assured that
 they have the unabated freedom to build their own derivative works
 from the sources provided.
 FSF (as authors of GPL) realizes that software distribution comes in many
 forms. Embedded manufacturers, for example, have the freedom to put
 GPL'd software into their PDAs with very tight memory and space
 constraints. In such cases, putting the source right alongside the
 binaries on the machine itself might not be an option. While it is
 recommended that this be the default way that people comply with GPL, the
 GPL does provide options when such distribution is infeasible.
 \S 3, therefore, allows source code to be provided on any physical
 ``medium customarily used for software interchange.''  By design, this
 phrase covers a broad spectrum. At best, FSF can viably release a new GPL
 every ten years or so. Thus, phrases like this must be adaptive to
 changes in the technology. When GPL version 2 was first published in June
 , distribution on magnetic tape was still common, and CD was
 relatively new. Today, CD is the default, and for larger systems DVD-R is
 gaining adoption. This language must adapt with changing technology.
 Meanwhile, the binding created by the word ``customarily'' is key. Many
 incorrectly believe that distributing binary on CD and source on the
 Internet is acceptable. In the corporate world, it is indeed customary to
 simply download CDs worth of data over a T1 or email large file
 attachments. However, even today in the USA, many computer users with
 CD-ROM drives are not connected to the Internet, and most people connected
 to the Internet are connected via a 56K dial-up connection. Downloading
 CDs full of data is not customary for them in the least. In some cities
 in Africa, computers are becoming more common, but Internet connectivity
 is still available only at a few centralized locations. Thus, the
 ``customs'' here must be normalized for a worldwide userbase. Simply
 providing source on the Internet --- while it is a kind, friendly and
 useful thing to do --- is not usually sufficient.
 Note, however, a major exception to this rule, given by the last paragraph
 of \S 3. \emph{If} distribution of the binary files is made only on the
 Internet (i.e., ``from a designated place''), \emph{then} simply providing
 the source code right alongside the binaries in the same place is
 sufficient to comply with \S 3.
 \medskip
 As is shown above, Under \S 3(a), embedded manufacturers can put the
 binaries on the device and ship the source code along on a CD\@. However,
 sometimes this turns out to be too costly. Including a CD with every
 device could prove too costly, and may practically (although not legally)
 prohibit using GPL'd software. For this situation and others like it, \S
 (b) is available.
 \S 3(b) allows a distributor of binaries to instead provide a written
 offer for source code alongside those binaries. This is useful in two
 specific ways. First, it may turn out that most users do not request the
 source, and thus the cost of producing the CDs is saved --- a financial
 and environmental windfall. In addition, along with a \S 3(b) compliant
 offer for source, a binary distributor might choose to \emph{also} give a
 URL for source code. Many who would otherwise need a CD with source might
 turn out to have those coveted high bandwidth connections, and are able to
 download the source instead --- again yielding environmental and financial
 windfalls.
 However, note that regardless of how many users prefer to get the
 source online, \S 3(b) does place lasting long-term obligations on the
 binary distributor. The binary distributor must be prepared to honor
 that offer for source for three years and ship it out (just as they
 would have had to do under \S 3(a)) at a moment's notice when they
 receive such a request. There is real organizational cost here:
 support engineers must be trained how to route source requests, and
 source CD images for every release version for the last three years
 must be kept on hand to burn such CDs quickly. The requests might not
 even come from actual customers; the offer for source must be valid
 for ``any third party.''
 That phrase is another place where some get confused --- thinking again
 that full public distribution of source is required. The offer for source
 must be valid for ``any third party'' because of the freedoms of
 redistribution granted by \S\S 1--2. A company may ship a binary image
 and an offer for source to only one customer. However, under GPL, that
 customer has the right to redistribute that software to the world if she
 likes. When she does, that customer has an obligation to make sure that
 those who receive the software from her can exercise their freedoms under
 GPL --- including the freedom to modify, rebuild, and redistribute the
 source code.
 \S 3(c) is created to save her some trouble, because by itself \S 3(b)
 would unfairly favor large companies. \S 3(b) allows the
 separation of the binary software from the key tool that people can use
 to exercise their freedom. The GPL permits this separation because it is
 good for redistributors, and those users who turn out not to need the
 source. However, to ensure equal rights for all software users, anyone
 along the distribution chain must have the right to get the source and
 exercise those freedoms that require it.
 Meanwhile, \S 3(b)'s compromise primarily benefits companies who
 distribute binary software commercially. Without \S 3(c), that benefit
 would be at the detriment of the companies' customers; the burden of
 source code provision would be unfairly shifted to the companies'
 customers. A customer, who had received binaries with a \S 3(b)-compliant
 offer, would be required under GPL (sans \S 3(c)) to acquire the source,
 merely to give a copy of the software to a friend who needed it. \S 3(c)
 reshifts this burden to entity who benefits from \S 3(b).
 \S 3(c) allows those who undertake \emph{noncommercial} distribution to
 simply pass along a \S 3(b)-compliant source code offer. The customer who
 wishes to give a copy to her friend can now do so without provisioning the
 source, as long as she gives that offer to her friend. By contrast, if
 she wanted to go into business for herself selling CDs of that software,
 she would have to acquire the source and either comply via \S 3(a), or
 write her own \S 3(b)-compliant source offer.
 This process is precisely the reason why a \S 3(b) source offer must be
 valid for all third parties. At the time the offer is made, there is no
 way of knowing who might end up noncommercially receiving a copy of the
 software. Companies who choose to comply via \S 3(b) must thus be
 prepared to honor all incoming source code requests. For this and the
 many other additional necessary complications under \S\S 3(b--c), it is
 only rarely a better option than complying via \S 3(a).
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{The Implied Patent Grant in GPL}
 We digress again briefly from our section-by-section consideration of GPL
 to consider the interaction between the terms of GPL and patent law. The
 GPL, despite being silent with respect to patents, actually confers on its
 licensees more rights to a licensor's patents than those licenses that
 purport to address the issue. This is the case because patent law, under
 the doctrine of implied license, gives to each distributee of a patented
 article a license from the distributor to practice any patent claims owned
 or held by the distributor that cover the distributed article. The
 implied license also extends to any patent claims owned or held by the
 distributor that cover ``reasonably contemplated uses'' of the patented
 article. To quote the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the highest court
 for patent cases other than the Supreme Court:
 \begin{quotation}
 Generally, when a seller sells a product without restriction, it in
 effect promises the purchaser that in exchange for the price paid, it will
 not interfere with the purchaser's full enjoyment of the product
 purchased. The buyer has an implied license under any patents of the
 seller that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the
 parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.
 \end{quotation}
 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp., Inc., 123 F.3d
 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
 Of course, Free Software is licensed, not sold, and there are indeed
 restrictions placed on the licensee, but those differences are not likely
 to prevent the application of the implied license doctrine to Free
 Software, because software licensed under the GPL grants the licensee the
 right to make, use, and sell the software, each of which are exclusive
 rights of a patent holder. Therefore, although the GPL does not expressly
 grant the licensee the right to do those things under any patents the
 licensor may have that cover the software or its reasonably contemplated
 uses, by licensing the software under the GPL, the distributor impliedly
 licenses those patents to the GPL licensee with respect to the GPL
 licensed software.
 An interesting issue regarding this implied patent license of GPL'd
 software is what would be considered ``uses of the [software] to which
 the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put.'' A
 clever advocate may argue that the implied license granted by GPL is
 larger in scope than the express license in other Free Software
 licenses with express patent grants, in that, the patent license
 clause of many of those licenses are specifically limited to the
 patent claims covered by the code as licensed by the patentee.
 To the contrary, GPL's implied patent license grants the GPL licensee a
 patent license to do much more than just that because the GPL licensee,
 under the doctrine of implied patent license, is free to practice any
 patent claims held by the licensor that cover ``reasonably contemplated
 uses'' of the GPL'd code, which may very well include creation and
 distribution of derivative works since the GPL's terms, under which the
 patented code is distributed, expressly permits such activity.
 Further supporting this result is the Federal Circuit's pronouncement that
 the recipient of a patented article has, not only an implied license to
 make, use, and sell the article, but also an implied patent license to
 repair the article to enable it to function properly, Bottom Line Mgmt.,
 Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Additionally, the
 Federal Circuit extended that rule to include any future recipients of the
 patented article, not just the direct recipient from the distributor.
 This theory comports well with the idea of Free Software, whereby software
 is distributed amongst many entities within the community for the purpose
 of constant evolution and improvement. In this way, the law of implied
 patent license used by the GPL ensures that the community mutually
 benefits from the licensing of patents to any single community member.
 Note that simply because GPL'd software has an implied patent license does
 not mean that any patents held by a distributor of GPL'd code become
 worthless. To the contrary, the patents are still valid and enforceable
 against either:
 \begin{enumerate}
  \renewcommand{\theenumi}{\alph{enumi}}
  \renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textup{(\theenumi)}}
 \item any software other than that licensed under the GPL by the patent
   holder, and
 \item any party that does not comply with the GPL
 with respect to the licensed software.
 \end{enumerate}
 \newcommand{\compB}{$\mathcal{B}$}
 \newcommand{\compA}{$\mathcal{A}$}
 For example, if Company \compA{} has a patent on advanced Web browsing, but
 also licenses a Web browsing software program under the GPL, then it
 cannot assert the patent against any party that takes a license to its
 program under the GPL. However, if a party uses that program without
 complying with the GPL, then Company \compA{} can assert, not just copyright
 infringement claims against the non-GPL-compliant party, but also
 infringement of the patent, because the implied patent license only
 extends to use of the software in accordance with the GPL. Further, if
 Company \compB{} distributes a competitive advanced Web browsing program,
 Company \compA{} is free to assert its patent against any user or
 distributor of that product. It is irrelevant whether Company \compB's
 program is distributed under the GPL, as Company \compB{} can not grant
 implied licenses to Company \compA's patent.
 This result also reassures companies that they need not fear losing their
 proprietary value in patents to competitors through the GPL implied patent
 license, as only those competitors who adopt and comply with the GPL's
 terms can benefit from the implied patent license. To continue the
 example above, Company \compB{} does not receive a free ride on Company
 \compA's patent, as Company \compB{} has not licensed-in and then
 redistributed Company A's advanced Web browser under the GPL. If Company
 \compB{} does do that, however, Company \compA{} still has not lost
 competitive advantage against Company \compB{}, as Company \compB{} must then,
 when it re-distributes Company \compA's program, grant an implied license
 to any of its patents that cover the program. Further, if Company \compB{}
 relicenses an improved version of Company A's program, it must do so under
 the GPL, meaning that any patents it holds that cover the improved version
 are impliedly licensed to any licensee. As such, the only way Company
 \compB{} can benefit from Company \compA's implied patent license, is if it,
 itself, distributes Company \compA's software program and grants an
 implied patent license to any of its patents that cover that program.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Defending Freedom on Many Fronts}
 Chapters~\ref{run-and-verbatim} and ~\ref{source-and-binary} presented the
 core freedom-defending provisions of GPL\@, which are in \S\S 0--3. \S\S
 --7 of the GPL are designed to ensure that \S\S 0--3 are not infringed,
 are enforceable, are kept to the confines of copyright law, and are not
 trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other entirely
 separate legal systems. In short, while \S\S 0--3 are the parts of the
 license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers, \S\S 4--7 are
 the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear so that \S\S
 --3 can do their jobs.
 \section{GPL \S 4: Termination on Violation}
 \label{GPLs4}
 \S 4 is GPL's termination clause. Upon first examination, it seems
 strange that a license with the goal of defending users' and programmers'
 freedoms for perpetuity in an irrevocable way would have such a clause.
 However, upon further examination, the difference between irrevocability
 and this termination clause becomes clear.
 The GPL is irrevocable in the sense that once a copyright holder grants
 rights for someone to copy, modify and redistribute the software under
 terms of the GPL, they cannot later revoke that grant. Since the GPL has
 no provision allowing the copyright holder to take such a prerogative, the
 license is granted as long as the copyright remains in effect.\footnote{In
   the USA, due to unfortunate legislation, the length of copyright is
   nearly perpetual, even though the Constitution forbids perpetual
   copyright.} The copyright holder has the right to relicense the same
 work under different licenses (see Section~\ref{Proprietary Relicensing}
 of this tutorial), or to stop distributing the GPL'd version (assuming \S
 (b) was never used), but she may not revoke the rights under GPL
 already granted.
 In fact, when an entity looses their right to copy, modify and distribute
 GPL'd software, it is because of their \emph{own actions}, not that of
 the copyright holder. The copyright holder does not decided when \S 4
 termination occurs (if ever), the actions of the licensee does.
 Under copyright law, the GPL has granted various rights and freedoms to
 the licensee to perform specific types of copying, modification, and
 redistribution. By default, all other types of copying, modification, and
 redistribution are prohibited. \S 4 says that if you undertake any of
 those other types (e.g., redistributing binary-only in violation of \S 3),
 then all rights under the license --- even those otherwise permitted for
 those who have not violated --- terminate automatically.
 \S 4 gives GPL teeth. If licensees fail to adhere to the license, then
 they are stuck. They must completely cease and desist from all
 copying, modification and distribution of that GPL'd software.
 At that point, violating licensees must gain the forgiveness of the
 copyright holder to have their rights restored. Alternatively, they could
 negotiate another agreement, separate from GPL, with the copyright
 holder. Both are common practice.
 At FSF, it is part of the mission to spread software freedom. When FSF
 enforces GPL, the goal is to bring the violator back into compliance as
 quickly as possible, and redress the damage caused by the violation.
 That is FSF's steadfast position in a violation negotiation --- comply
 with the license and respect freedom.
 However, other entities who do not share the full ethos of software
 freedom as institutionalized by FSF pursue GPL violations differently.
 MySQL AB, a company that produces the GPL'd MySQL database, upon
 discovering GPL violations typically negotiates a proprietary software
 license separately for a fee. While this practice is not one that FSF
 would ever consider undertaking or even endorsing, it is a legal way for
 copyright holders to proceed.
 \section{GPL \S 5: Acceptance, Copyright Style}
 \label{GPLs5}
 \S 5 brings us to perhaps the most fundamental misconception and common
 confusion about GPL\@. Because of the prevalence of proprietary software,
 most users, programmers, and lawyers alike tend to be more familiar with
 EULAs. EULAs are believed by their authors to be contracts, requiring
 formal agreement between the licensee and the software distributor to be
 valid. This has led to mechanisms like ``shrink-wrap'' and ``click-wrap''
 as mechanisms to perform acceptance ceremonies with EULAs.
 The GPL does not need contract law to ``transfer rights.''  No rights
 are transfered between parties. By contrast, the GPL is a permission
 slip to undertake activities that would otherwise have been prohibited
 by copyright law. As such, it needs no acceptance ceremony; the
 licensee is not even required to accept the license.
 However, without the GPL, the activities of copying, modifying and
 distributing the software would have otherwise been prohibited. So, the
 GPL says that you only accepted the license by undertaking activities that
 you would have otherwise been prohibited without your license under GPL\@.
 This is a certainly subtle point, and requires a mindset quite different
 from the contractual approach taken by EULA authors.
 An interesting side benefit to \S 5 is that the bulk of users of Free
 Software are not required to accept the license. Undertaking fair and
 unregulated use of the work, for example, does not bind you to the GPL,
 since you are not engaging in activity that is otherwise controlled by
 copyright law. Only when you engage in those activities that might have an
 impact on the freedom of others does license acceptance occur, and the
 terms begin to bind you to fair and equitable sharing of the software. In
 other words, the GPL only kicks in when it needs to for the sake of
 freedom.
 \section{GPL \S 6: GPL, My One and Only}
 \label{GPLs6}
 A point that was glossed over in Section~\ref{GPLs4}'s discussion of \S 4
 was the irrevocable nature of the GPL\@. The GPL is indeed irrevocable,
 and it is made so formally by \S 6.
 The first sentence in \S 6 ensures that as software propagates down the
 distribution chain, that each licensor can pass along the license to each
 new licensee. Under \S 6, the act of distributing automatically grants a
 license from the original licensor to the next recipient. This creates a
 chain of grants that ensure that everyone in the distribution has rights
 under the GPL\@. In a mathematical sense, this bounds the bottom ---
 making sure that future licensees get no fewer rights than the licensee before.
 The second sentence of \S 6 does the opposite; it bounds from the top. It
 prohibits any licensor along the distribution chain from placing
 additional restrictions on the user. In other words, no additional
 requirements may trump the rights and freedoms given by GPL\@.
 The final sentence of \S 6 makes it abundantly clear that no individual
 entity in the distribution chain is responsible for the compliance of any
 other. This is particularly important for noncommercial users who have
 passed along a source offer under \S 3(c), as they cannot be assured that
 the issuer of the offer will honor their \S 3 obligations.
 In short, \S 6 says that your license for the software is your one and
 only copyright license allowing you to copy, modify and distribute the
 software.
 \section{GPL \S 7: ``Give Software Liberty or Give It Death!''}
 \label{GPLs7}
 In essence, \S 7 is a verbosely worded way of saying for non-copyright
 systems what \S 6 says for copyright. If there exists any reason that a
 distributor knows of that would prohibit later licensees from exercising
 their full rights under GPL, then distribution is prohibited.
 Originally, this was designed as the title of this section suggests --- as
 a last ditch effort to make sure that freedom was upheld. However, in
 modern times, it has come to give much more. Now that the body of GPL'd
 software is so large, patent holders who would want to be distributors of
 GPL'd software have a tough choice. They must choose between avoiding
 distribution of GPL'd software that exercises the teachings of their
 patents, or grant a royalty-free, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to
 those patents. Many companies, including IBM, the largest patent holder
 in the world, have chosen the latter.
 Thus, \S 7 rarely gives software death by stopping its distribution.
 Instead, it is inspiring patent holders to share their patents in the same
 freedom-defending way that they share their copyrighted works.
 \section{GPL \S 8: Excluding Unfreedonia}
 \label{GPLs8}
 \S 8 is rarely used by copyright holders. Its intention is that if a
 particular country, say Unfreedonia, grants particular patents or allows
 copyrighted interfaces (no country to our knowledge even permits those
 yet), that the GPL'd software can continue in free and unabated
 distribution in the countries where such controls do not exist.
 It is a partial ``out'' from \S 7. Without \S 8, if a copyright holder
 knew of a patent in a particular country licensed in a GPL-incompatible
 way, then she could not distribute under GPL, because the work could
 legitimately end up in the hands of citizens of Unfreedonia.
 It is an inevitable but sad reality that some countries are freer than
 others. \S 8 exists to permit distribution in those countries that are
 free without otherwise negating parts of the license.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Odds, Ends, and Absolutely No Warranty}
 \S 0--7 constitute the freedom-defending terms of the GPL. The remainder
 of the GPL handles administrivia and issues concerning warranties and
 liability.
 \section{GPL \S 9: FSF as Stewards of GPL}
 \label{GPLs9}
 FSF reserves the exclusive right to publish future versions of the GPL\@;
 \S 9 expresses this. While the stewardship of the copyrights on the body
 of GPL'd software around the world is shared among thousands of
 individuals and organizations, the license itself needs a single steward.
 Forking of the code is often regrettable but basically innocuous. Forking
 of licensing is disastrous.
 FSF has only released two versions of GPL --- in 1989 and 1991. GPL
 version 3 is under current internal drafting. FSF's plan is to have a
 long and engaging comment period. The goal of GPL is to defend freedom, and
 a gigantic community depends on that freedom now. FSF hopes to take all
 stakeholders' opinions under advisement.
 \section{GPL \S 10: Relicensing Permitted}
 \label{GPLs10}
 \S 10 reminds the licensee of what is already implied by the nature of
 copyright law. Namely, the copyright holder of a particular software
 program has the prerogative to grant alternative agreements under separate
 copyright licenses.
 \section{GPL \S 11: No Warranty}
 \label{GPLs11}
 All warranty disclaimer language tends to be shouted in all capital
 letters. Apparently, there was once a case where the disclaimer language
 of an agreement was negated because it was not ``conspicuous'' to one of
 the parties. Therefore, to make such language ``conspicuous,'' people
 started placing it in bold or capitalizing the entire text. It now seems
 to be voodoo tradition of warranty disclaimer writing.
 Some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions because
 its disclaimer of warranties is impermissibly broad. However, \S 11
 contains a jurisdictional savings provision, which states that it is to be
 interpreted only as broadly as allowed by applicable law. Such a
 provision ensures that both it, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any
 jurisdiction, regardless of any particular law regarding the
 permissibility of certain warranty disclaimers.
 Finally, one important point to remember when reading \S 11 is that \S 1
 permits the sale of warranty as an additional service, which \S 11 affirms.
 \section{GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability}
 \label{GPLs12}
 There are many types of warranties, and in some jurisdictions some of them
 cannot be disclaimed. Therefore, usually agreements will have both a
 warranty disclaimer and a limitation of liability, as we have in \S 12. \S
 thus gets rid of all implied warranties that can legally be
 disavowed. \S 12, in turn, limits the liability of the actor for any
 warranties that cannot legally be disclaimed in a particular jurisdiction.
 Again, some have argued the GPL is unenforceable in some jurisdictions
 because its limitation of liability is impermissibly broad. However, \S
 , just like its sister, \S 11, contains a jurisdictional savings
 provision, which states that it is to be interpreted only as broadly as
 allowed by applicable law. As stated above, such a provision ensures that
 both \S 12, and the entire GPL, is enforceable in any jurisdiction,
 regardless of any particular law regarding the permissibility of limiting
 liability.
 So end the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{The Lesser GPL}
 As we have seen in our consideration of the GPL, its text is specifically
 designed to cover all possible derivative works under copyright law. Our
 goal in designing GPL was to make sure that any derivative work of GPL'd
 software was itself released under GPL when distributed. Reaching as far
 as copyright law will allow is the most direct way to reach that goal.
 However, while the strategic goal is to bring as much Free Software
 into the world as possible, particular tactical considerations
 regarding software freedom dictate different means. Extending the
 copyleft effect as far as copyright law allows is not always the most
 prudent course in reaching the goal. In particular situations, even
 those of us with the goal of building a world where all published
 software is Free Software realize that full copyleft does not best
 serve us. The GNU Lesser General Public License (``GNU LGPL'') was
 designed as a solution for such situations.
 \section{The First LGPL'd Program}
 The first example that FSF encountered where such altered tactics were
 needed was when work began on the GNU C Library. The GNU C Library would
 become (and today, now is) a drop-in replacement for existing C libraries.
 On a Unix-like operating system, C is the lingua franca and the C library
 is an essential component for all programs. It is extremely difficult to
 construct a program that will run with ease on a Unix-like operating
 system without making use of services provided by the C library --- even
 if the program is written in a language other than C\@. Effectively, all
 user application programs that run on any modern Unix-like system must
 make use of the C library.
 By the time work began on the GNU implementation of the C libraries, there
 were already many C libraries in existence from a variety of vendors.
 Every proprietary Unix vendor had one, and many third parties produced
 smaller versions for special purpose use. However, our goal was to create
 a C library that would provide equivalent functionality to these other C
 libraries on a Free Software operating system (which in fact happens today
 on modern GNU/Linux systems, which all use the GNU C Library).
 Unlike existing GNU application software, however, the licensing
 implications of releasing the GNU C Library (``glibc'') under GPL were
 somewhat different. Applications released under GPL would never
 themselves become part of proprietary software. However, if glibc were
 released under GPL, it would require that any application distributed for
 the GNU/Linux platform be released under GPL\@.
 Since all applications on a Unix-like system depend on the C library, it
 means that they must link with that library to function on the system. In
 other words, all applications running on a Unix-like system must be
 combined with the C library to form a new whole derivative work that is
 composed of the original application and the C library. Thus, if glibc
 were GPL'd, each and every application distributed for use on GNU/Linux
 would also need to be GPL'd, since to even function, such applications
 would need to be combined into larger derivative works by linking with
 glibc.
 At first glance, such an outcome seems like a windfall for Free Software
 advocates, since it stops all proprietary software development on
 GNU/Linux systems. However, the outcome is a bit more subtle. In a world
 where many C libraries already exist, many of which could easily be ported
 to GNU/Linux, a GPL'd glibc would be unlikely to succeed. Proprietary
 vendors would see the excellent opportunity to license their C libraries
 to anyone who wished to write proprietary software for GNU/Linux systems.
 The de-facto standard for the C library on GNU/Linux would likely be not
 glibc, but the most popular proprietary one.
 Meanwhile, the actual goal of releasing glibc under GPL --- to ensure no
 proprietary applications on GNU/Linux --- would be unattainable in this
 scenario. Furthermore, users of those proprietary applications would also
 be users of a proprietary C library, not the Free glibc.
 The Lesser GPL was initially conceived to handle this scenario. It was
 clear that the existence of proprietary applications for GNU/Linux was
 inevitable. Since there were so many C libraries already in existence, a
 new one under GPL would not stop that tide. However, if the new C library
 were released under a license that permitted proprietary applications
 to link with it, but made sure that the library itself remained Free,
 an ancillary goal could be met. Users of proprietary applications, while
 they would not have the freedom to copy, share, modify and redistribute
 the application itself, would have the freedom to do so with respect to
 the C library.
 There was no way the license of glibc could stop or even slow the creation
 of proprietary applications on GNU/Linux. However, loosening the
 restrictions on the licensing of glibc ensured that nearly all proprietary
 applications at least used a Free C library rather than a proprietary one.
 This trade-off is central to the reasoning behind the LGPL\@.
 Of course, many people who use the LGPL today are not thinking in these
 terms. In fact, they are often choosing the LGPL because they are looking
 for a ``compromise'' between the GPL and the X11-style liberal licensing.
 However, understanding FSF's reasoning behind the creation of the LGPL is
 helpful when studying the license.
 \section{What's the Same?}
 Much of the text of the LGPL is identical to the GPL\@. As we begin our
 discussion of the LGPL, we will first eliminate the sections that are
 identical, or that have the minor modification changing the word
 ``Program'' to ``Library.''
 First, \S 1 of LGPL, the rules for verbatim copying of source, are
 equivalent to those in GPL's \S 1.
 Second, \S 8 of LGPL is equivalent \S 4 of GPL\@. In both licenses, this
 section handles termination in precisely the same manner.
 \S 9 in LGPL is equivalent to \S 5 in GPL\@. Both sections assert that
 the license is a copyright license, and handle the acceptance of those
 copyright terms.
 LGPL's \S 10 is equivalent to GPL's \S 6. They both protect the
 distribution system of Free Software under these licenses, to ensure that
 up, down, and throughout the distribution chain, each recipient of the
 software receives identical rights under the license and no other
 restrictions are imposed.
 LGPL's \S 11 is GPL's \S 7. As discussed, it is used to ensure that
 other claims and legal realities, such as patent licenses and court
 judgments, do not trump the rights and permissions granted by these
 licenses, and requires that distribution be halted if such a trump is
 known to exist.
 LGPL's \S 12 adds the same features as GPL's \S 8. These sections are
 used to allow original copyright holders to forbid distribution in
 countries with draconian laws that would otherwise contradict these
 licenses.
 LGPL's \S 13 sets up FSF as the steward of the LGPL, just as GPL's \S 9
 does for GPL. Meanwhile, LGPL's \S 14 reminds licensees that copyright
 holders can grant exceptions to the terms of LGPL, just as GPL's \S 10
 reminds licensees of the same thing.
 Finally, the assertions of no warranty and limitations of liability are
 identical; thus LGPL's \S 15 and \S 16 are the same as GPL's \S 11 and \S
 .
 As we see, the entire latter half of the license is identical.
 The parts which set up the legal boundaries and meta-rules for the license
 are the same. It is our intent that the two licenses operate under the
 same legal mechanisms and are enforced precisely the same way.
 We strike a difference only in the early portions of the license.
 Namely, in the LGPL we go into deeper detail of granting various permissions to
 create derivative works, so the redistributors can make
 some proprietary derivatives. Since we simply do not allow the
 license to stretch as far as copyright law does regarding what
 derivative works must be relicensed under the same terms, we must go
 further to explain which derivative works we will allow to be
 proprietary. Thus, we'll see that the front matter of the LGPL is a
 bit more wordy and detailed with regards to the permissions granted to
 those who modify or redistribute the software.
 \section{Additions to the Preamble}
 Most of LGPL's Preamble is identical, but the last seven paragraphs
 introduce the concepts and reasoning behind creation of the license,
 presenting a more generalized and briefer version of the story with which
 we began our consideration of LGPL\@.
 In short, FSF designed LGPL for those edge cases where the freedom of the
 public can better be served by a more lax licensing system. FSF doesn't
 encourage use of LGPL automatically for any software that happens to be a
 library; rather, FSF suggests that it only be used in specific cases, such
 as the following:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item To encourage the widest possible use of a Free Software library, so
   it becomes a de-facto standard over similar, although not
   interface-identical, proprietary alternatives
 \item To encourage use of a Free Software library that already has
   interface-identical proprietary competitors that are more developed
 \item To allow a greater number of users to get freedom, by encouraging
   proprietary companies to pick a Free alternative for its otherwise
   proprietary products
 \end{itemize}
 LGPL's preamble sets forth the limits to which the license seeks to go in
 chasing these goals. LGPL is designed to ensure that users who happen to
 acquire software linked with such libraries have full freedoms with
 respect to that library. They should have the ability to upgrade to a newer
 or modified Free version or to make their own modifications, even if they
 cannot modify the primary software program that links to that library.
 Finally, the preamble introduces two terms used throughout the license to
 clarify between the different types of derivative works: ``works that use
 the library,'' and ``works based on the library.''  Unlike GPL, LGPL must
 draw some lines regarding derivative works. We do this here in this
 license because we specifically seek to liberalize the rights afforded to
 those who make derivative works. In GPL, we reach as far as copyright law
 allows. In LGPL, we want to draw a line that allows some derivative works
 copyright law would otherwise prohibit if the copyright holder exercised
 his full permitted controls over the work.
 \section{A Work that Uses the Library}
 In the effort to allow certain proprietary derivative works and prohibit
 others, LGPL distinguishes between two classes of derivative works:
 ``works based on the library,'' and ``works that use the library.''  The
 distinction is drawn on the bright line of binary (or runtime) derivative
 works and source code derivatives. We will first consider the definition
 of a ``work that uses the library,'' which is set forth in LGPL \S 5.
 We noted in our discussion of GPL \S 3 (discussed in
 Section~\ref{GPL-Section-3} of this document) that binary programs when
 compiled and linked with GPL'd software are derivative works of that GPL'd
 software. This includes both linking that happens at compile-time (when
 the binary is created) or at runtime (when the binary -- including library
 and main program both -- is loaded into memory by the user). In GPL,
 binary derivative works are controlled by the terms of the license (in GPL
 \S 3), and distributors of such binary derivatives must release full
 corresponding source\@.
 In the case of LGPL, these are precisely the types of derivative works
 we wish to permit. This scenario, defined in LGPL as ``a work that uses
 the library,'' works as follows:
 \newcommand{\workl}{$\mathcal{L}$}
 \newcommand{\lplusi}{$\mathcal{L\!\!+\!\!I}$}
 \begin{itemize}
 \item A new copyright holder creates a separate and independent work,
   \worki{}, that makes interface calls (e.g., function calls) to the
   LGPL'd work, called \workl{}, whose copyright is held by some other
   party. Note that since \worki{} and \workl{} are separate and
   independent works, there is no copyright obligation on this new copyright
   holder with regard to the licensing of \worki{}, at least with regard to
   the source code.
 \item The new copyright holder, for her software to be useful, realizes
   that it cannot run without combining \worki{} and \workl{}.
   Specifically, when she creates a running binary program, that running
   binary must be a derivative work, called \lplusi{}, that the user can
   run.
 \item Since \lplusi{} is a derivative work of both \worki{} and \workl{},
   the license of \workl{} (the LGPL) can put restrictions on the license
   of \lplusi{}. In fact, this is what LGPL does.
 \end{itemize}
 We will talk about the specific restrictions LGPL places on ``works
 that use the library'' in detail in Section~\ref{lgpl-section-6}. For
 now, focus on the logic related to how the LGPL places requirements on
 the license of \lplusi{}. Note, first of all, the similarity between
 this explanation and that in Section~\ref{separate-and-independent},
 which discussed the combination of otherwise separate and independent
 works with GPL'd code. Effectively, what LGPL does is say that when a
 new work is otherwise separate and independent, but has interface
 calls out to an LGPL'd library, then it is considered a ``work that
 uses the library.''
 In addition, the only reason that LGPL has any control over the licensing
 of a ``work that uses the library'' is for the same reason that GPL has
 some say over separate and independent works. Namely, such controls exist
 because the {\em binary combination\/} (\lplusi{}) that must be created to
 make the separate work (\worki{}) at all useful is a derivative work of
 the LGPL'd software (\workl{}).
 Thus, a two-question test that will help indicate if a particular work is
 a ``work that uses the library'' under LGPL is as follows:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item Is the source code of the new copyrighted work, \worki{}, a
   completely independent work that stands by itself, and includes no
   source code from \workl{}?
 \item When the source code is compiled, does it create a derivative work
   by combining with \workl{}, either by static (compile-time) or dynamic
   (runtime) linking, to create a new binary work, \lplusi{}?
 \end{enumerate}
 If the answers to both questions are ``yes,'' then \worki{} is most likely
 a ``work that uses the library.''  If the answer to the first question
 ``yes,'' but the answer to the second question is ``no,'' then most likely
 \worki{} is neither a ``work that uses the library'' nor a ``work based on
 the library.''  If the answer to the first question is ``no,'' but the
 answer to the second question is ``yes,'' then an investigation into
 whether or not \worki{} is in fact a ``work based on the library'' is
 warranted.
 \section{A Work Based on the Library}
 In short, a ``work based on the library'' could be defined as any
 derivative work of LGPL'd software that cannot otherwise fit the
 definition of a ``work that uses the library.''  A ``work based on the
 library'' extends the full width and depth of copyright derivative works,
 in the same sense that GPL does.
 Most typically, one creates a ``work based on the library'' by directly
 modifying the source of the library. Such a work could also be created by
 tightly integrating new software with the library. The lines are no doubt
 fuzzy, just as they are with GPL'd works, since copyright law gives us no
 litmus test for derivative works of a software program.
 Thus, the test to use when considering whether something is a ``work
 based on the library'' is as follows:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item Is the new work, when in source form, a derivative work under
   copyright law of the LGPL'd work?
 \item Is there no way in which the new work fits the definition of a
   ``work that uses the library''?
 \end{enumerate}
 If the answer is ``yes'' to both these questions, then you most likely
 have a ``work based on the library.''  If the answer is ``no'' to the
 first but ``yes'' to the second, you are in a gray area between ``work
 based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''
 In our years of work with the LGPL, however, we have never seen a work
 of software that was not clearly one or the other; the line is quite
 bright. At times, though, we have seen cases where a derivative work
 appeared in some ways to be a work that used the library and in other
 ways a work based on the library. We overcame this problem by
 dividing the work into smaller subunits. It was soon discovered that
 what we actually had were three distinct components: the original
 LGPL'd work, a specific set of works that used that library, and a
 specific set of works that were based on the library. Once such
 distinctions are established, the licensing for each component can be
 considered independently and the LGPL applied to each work as
 prescribed.
 \section{Subtleties in Works that Use the Library}
 In our discussion of the definition of ``works that use the library,'' we
 left out a few more complex details that relate to lower-level programming
 details. The fourth paragraph of LGPL's \S 5 covers these complexities,
 and it has been a source of great confusion. Part of the confusion comes
 because a deep understanding of how compiler programs work is nearly
 mandatory to grasp the subtle nature of what \S 5, \P 4 seeks to
 cover. It helps some to note that this is a border case that we cover in
 the license only so that when such a border case is hit, the implications
 of using LGPL continue in the expected way.
 To understand this subtle point, we must recall the way that a compiler
 operates. The compiler first generates object code, which are the binary
 representations of various programming modules. Each of those modules is
 usually not useful by itself; it becomes useful to a user of a full program
 when those modules are {\em linked\/} into a full binary executable.
 As we have discussed, the assembly of modules can happen at compile-time
 or at runtime. Legally, there is no distinction between the two --- both
 create a derivative work by copying and combining portions of one work and
 mixing them with another. However, under LGPL, there is a case in the
 compilation process where the legal implications are different.
 Specifically, while we know that a ``work that uses the library'' is one
 whose final binary is a derivative work, but whose source is not, there
 are cases where the object code --- that intermediate step between source
 and final binary --- is a derivative work created by copying verbatim code
 from the LGPL'd software.
 For efficiency, when a compiler turns source code into object code, it
 sometimes places literal portions of the copyrighted library code into the
 object code for an otherwise separate independent work. In the normal
 scenario, the derivative would not be created until final assembly and
 linking of the executable occurred. However, when the compiler does this
 efficiency optimization, at the intermediate object code step, a
 derivative work is created.
 LGPL's \S 5, \P 4 is designed to handle this specific case. The intent of
 the license is clearly that simply compiling software to ``make use'' of
 the library does not in itself cause the compiled work to be a ``work
 based on the library.''  However, since the compiler copies verbatim,
 copyrighted portions of the library into the object code for the otherwise
 separate and independent work, it would actually cause that object file to be a
 ``work based on the library.''  It is not FSF's intent that a mere
 compilation idiosyncrasy would change the requirements on the users of the
 LGPL'd software. This paragraph removes that restriction, allowing the
 implications of the license to be the same regardless of the specific
 mechanisms the compiler uses underneath to create the ``work that uses the
 library.''
 As it turns out, we have only once had anyone worry about this specific
 idiosyncrasy, because that particular vendor wanted to ship object code
 (rather than final binaries) to their customers and was worried about
 this edge condition. The intent of clarifying this edge condition is
 primarily to quell the worries of software engineers who understand the
 level of verbatim code copying that a compiler often does, and to help
 them understand that the full implications of LGPL are the same regardless
 of the details of the compilation progress.
 \section{LGPL \S 6: Distributing Works that Use the Library}
 \label{lgpl-section-6}
 Now that we have established a good working definition of works that
 ``use'' and works that ``are based on'' the library, we will consider the
 rules for distributing these two different works.
 The rules for distributing ``works that use the library'' are covered in
 \S 6 of LGPL\@. \S 6 is much like GPL's \S 3, as it requires the release
 of source when a binary version of the LGPL'd software is released. Of
 course, it only requires that source code for the library itself be made
 available. The work that ``uses'' the library need not be provided in
 source form. However, there are also conditions in LGPL \S 6 to make sure
 that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.
 LGPL \S 6 lists five choices with regard to supplying library source
 and granting the freedom to modify that library source to users. We
 will first consider the option given by \S 6(b), which describes the
 most common way currently used for LGPL compliance on a ``work that
 uses the library.''
 \S 6(b) allows the distributor of a ``work that uses the library'' to
 simply use a dynamically linked, shared library mechanism to link with the
 library. This is by far the easiest and most straightforward option for
 distribution. In this case, the executable of the work that uses the
 library will contain only the ``stub code'' that is put in place by the
 shared library mechanism, and at runtime the executable will combine with
 the shared version of the library already resident on the user's computer.
 If such a mechanism is used, it must allow the user to upgrade and
 replace the library with interface-compatible versions and still be able
 to use the ``work that uses the library.''  However, all modern shared
 library mechanisms function as such, and thus \S 6(b) is the simplest
 option, since it does not even require that the distributor of the ``work
 based on the library'' ship copies of the library itself.
 \S 6(a) is the option to use when, for some reason, a shared library
 mechanism cannot be used. It requires that the source for the library be
 included, in the typical GPL fashion, but it also has a requirement beyond
 that. The user must be able to exercise her freedom to modify the library
 to its fullest extent, and that means recombining it with the ``work based
 on the library.''  If the full binary is linked without a shared library
 mechanism, the user must have available the object code for the ``work
 based on the library,'' so that the user can relink the application and
 build a new binary.
 The remaining options in \S 6 are very similar to the other choices
 provided by GPL \S 3. There are some additional options, but time does
 not permit us in this course to go into those additional options. In
 almost all cases of distribution under LGPL, either \S 6(a) or \S 6(b) are
 exercised.
 \section{Distribution of Works Based on the Library}
 Essentially, ``works based on the library'' must be distributed under the
 same conditions as works under full GPL\@. In fact, we note that LGPL's
 \S 2 is nearly identical in its terms and requirements to GPL's \S 2.
 There are again subtle differences and additions, which time does not
 permit us to cover in this course.
 \section{And the Rest}
 The remaining variations between LGPL and GPL cover the following
 conditions:
 \begin{itemize}
 \item Allowing a licensing ``upgrade'' from LGPL to GPL\@ (in LGPL \S 3)
 \item Binary distribution of the library only, covered in LGPL \S 4,
   which is effectively equivalent to LGPL \S 3
 \item Creating aggregates of libraries that are not derivative works of
   each other, and distributing them as a unit (in LGPL \S 7)
 \end{itemize}
 Due to time constraints, we cannot cover these additional terms in detail,
 but they are mostly straightforward. The key to understanding LGPL is
 understanding the difference between a ``work based on the library'' and a
 ``work that uses the library.''  Once that distinction is clear, the
 remainder of LGPL is close enough to GPL that the concepts discussed in
 our more extensive GPL unit can be directly applied.
 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 \chapter{Integrating the GPL into Business Practices}
 Since GPL'd software is now extremely prevalent through the industry, it
 is useful to have some basic knowledge about using GPL'd software in
 business and how to build business models around GPL'd software.
 \section{Using GPL'd Software In-House}
 As discussed in Sections~\ref{GPLs0} and~\ref{GPLs5} of this tutorial,
 the GPL only governs the activities of copying, modifying and
 distributing software programs that are not governed by the license.
 Thus, in FSF's view, simply installing the software on a machine and
 using it is not controlled or limited in any way by GPL\@. Using Free
 Software in general requires substantially fewer agreements and less
 license compliance activity than any known proprietary software.
 Even if a company engages heavily in copying the software throughout the
 enterprise, such copying is not only permitted by \S\S 1 and 3, but it is
 encouraged!  If the company simply deploys unmodified (or even modified)
 Free Software throughout the organization for its employees to use, the
 obligations under the license are very minimal. Using Free Software has a
 substantially lower cost of ownership --- both in licensing fees and in
 licensing checking and handling -- than the proprietary software
 equivalents.
 \section{Business Models}
 \label{Business Models}
 Using Free Software in house is certainly helpful, but a thriving
 market for Free Software-oriented business models also exists. There is the
 traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions.
 Many companies, including IBM and Red Hat, make substantial revenue
 from this model. IBM primarily chooses this model because they have
 found that for higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from
 proprietary software licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is
 in the hardware, but it is essential that software be stable, reliable
 and dependable, and the users be allowed to have unfettered access to
 it. Free Software, and GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can
 be assured that proprietary versions of the same software will not
 exists to compete on their hardware) is the right choice.
 Red Hat has actually found that a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software,
 when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some
 profit. Even though Red Hat's system is fully downloadable on their
 Web site, people still go to local computer stores and buy copies of their
 box set, which is simply a printed version of the manual (available under
 a Free license as well) and the Free Software system it documents.
 \medskip
 However, custom support, service, and software improvement contracts
 are the most widely used models for GPL'd software. The GPL is
 central to their success, because it ensures that the code base
 remains common, and that large and small companies are on equal
 footing for access to the technology. Consider, for example, the GNU
 Compiler Collection (GCC). Cygnus Solutions, a company started in the
 early 1990s, was able to grow steadily simply by providing services
 for GCC --- mostly consisting of new ports of GCC to different or new,
 embedded targets. Eventually, Cygnus was so successful that
 it was purchased by Red Hat where it remains a profitable division.
 However, there are very small companies like CodeSourcery, as well as
 other medium-sized companies like MontaVista and OpenTV that compete in
 this space. Because the code-base is protect by GPL, it creates and
 demands industry trust. Companies can cooperate on the software and
 improve it for everyone. Meanwhile, companies who rely on GCC for their
 work are happy to pay for improvements, and for ports to new target
 platforms. Nearly all the changes fold back into the standard
 versions, and those forks that exist remain freely available.
 \medskip
 \label{Proprietary Relicensing}
 A final common business model that is perhaps the most controversial is
 proprietary relicensing of a GPL'd code base. This is only an option for
 software in which a particular entity is the sole copyright holder. As
 discussed earlier in this tutorial, a copyright holder is permitted under
 copyright law to license a software system under her copyright as many
 different ways as she likes to as many different parties as she wishes.
 Some companies, such as MySQL AB and TrollTech, use this to their
 financial advantage with regard to a GPL'd code base. The standard
 version is available from the company under the terms of the GPL\@.
 However, parties can purchase separate proprietary software licensing for
 a fee.
 This business model is problematic because it means that the GPL'd code
 base must be developed in a somewhat monolithic way, because volunteer
 Free Software developers may be reluctant to assign their copyrights to
 the company because it will not promise to always and forever license the
 software as Free Software. Indeed, the company will surely use such code
 contributions in proprietary versions licensed for fees.
 \section{Ongoing Compliance}
 GPL compliance is in fact a very simple matter -- much simpler than
 typical proprietary software agreements and EULAs. Usually, the most
 difficult hurdle is changing from a proprietary software mindset to one
 that seeks to foster a community of sharing and mutual support. Certainly
 complying with the GPL from a users' perspective gives substantially fewer
 headaches than proprietary license compliance.
 For those who go into the business of distributing {\em modified\\}
 versions of GPL'd software, the burden is a bit higher, but not by
 much. The glib answer is that by releasing the whole product as Free
 Software, it is always easy to comply with the GPL. However,
 admittedly to the dismay of FSF, many modern and complex software
 systems are built using both proprietary and GPL'd components that are
 not legally derivative works of each other. Sometimes, it is easier simply to
 improve existing GPL'd application than to start from scratch. In
 exchange for that benefit, the license requires that the modifier give
 back to the commons that made the work easier in the first place. It is a
 reasonable trade-off and a way to help build a better world while also
 making a profit.
 Note that FSF does provide services to assist companies who need
 assistance in complying with the GPL. You can contact FSF's GPL
 Compliance Labs at $<$compliance@fsf.org$>$.
 If you are particularly interested in matters of GPL compliance, we
 recommend the second course in this series, {\em GPL Compliance Case
   Studies and Legal Ethics in Free Software Licensing\/}, in which we
 discuss some real GPL violation cases that FSF has worked to resolve.
 Consideration of such cases can help give insight on how to handle GPL
 compliance in new situations.
 \backmatter
 \appendix
 \chapter{The GNU General Public License}
 \begin{center}
 {\parindent 0in
 Version 2, June 1991
 Copyright \copyright\ 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 \bigskip
 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
 \bigskip
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
+}
 \end{center}
 \begin{center}
 {\bf\large Preamble}
 \end{center}
 The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom
 to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
 intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free
 Software---to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
 General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
 Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
 using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
 the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
 your programs, too.
 When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
 Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the
 freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for this service
 if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
 that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new Free programs;
 and that you know you can do these things.
 To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to
 deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These
 restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
 distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
 For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or
 for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You
 must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And
 you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
 We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2)
 offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
 distribute and/or modify the software.
 Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that
 everyone understands that there is no warranty for this Free Software. If
 the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its
 recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any
 problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors'
 reputations.
 Finally, any Free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
 We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a Free program will
 individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
 proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
 be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
 The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
 modification follow.
 \begin{center}
 {\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
   Modification}
 \end{center}
 \begin{enumerate}
 \addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
 \item
 This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice
 placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the
 terms of this General Public License. The ``Program,'' below, refers to
 any such program or work, and a ``work based on the Program'' means either
 the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a
 work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with
 modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter,
 translation is included without limitation in the term ``modification.'')
 Each licensee is addressed as ``you.''
 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
 Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
 Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
 \item You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
   code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously
   and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice
   and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to
   this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other
   recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
 You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you
 may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
 \item
 You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
 of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
 distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item
 You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that
 you changed the files and the date of any change.
 \item
 You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
 whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
 part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
 parties under the terms of this License.
 \item
 If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
 when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
 interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
 announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
 notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
 a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
 these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
 License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
 does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
 the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
 \end{enumerate}
 These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
 identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
 and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
 themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
 sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
 distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
 on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
 this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
 entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
 Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
 your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
 exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
 collective works based on the Program.
 In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
 with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
 a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
 the scope of this License.
 \item
 You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
 under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
 Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item
 Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
 source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
 \item
 Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
 years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
 cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
 machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
 distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
 customarily used for software interchange; or,
 \item
 Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
 to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
 allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
 received the program in object code or executable form with such
 an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
 \end{enumerate}
 The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
 making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
 code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
 associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
 control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
 special exception, the source code distributed need not include
 anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
 form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
 operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
 itself accompanies the executable.
 If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
 access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
 access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
 distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
 compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
 \item
 You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
 except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
 otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
 void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
 However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
 this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
 parties remain in full compliance.
 \item
 You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
 signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
 distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
 prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
 modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
 Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
 all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
 the Program or works based on it.
 \item
 Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
 Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
 original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
 these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
 restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
 You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
 this License.
 \item
 If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
 infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
 conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
 otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
 excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
 distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
 License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
 may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
 license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
 all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
 the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
 refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
 If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
 any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
 apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
 circumstances.
 It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
 patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
 such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
 integrity of the Free Software distribution system, which is
 implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
 generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
 through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
 system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
 to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
 impose that choice.
 This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
 be a consequence of the rest of this License.
 \item
 If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
 certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
 original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
 may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
 those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
 countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
 the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
 \item
 The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
 of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
 be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
 address new problems or concerns.
 Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
 specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
 later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and conditions
 either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
 Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
 this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
 Foundation.
 \item
 If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
 programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
 to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
 Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
 make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
 of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our Free Software and
 of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
 \begin{center}
 {\Large\sc
 No Warranty
+}
 \end{center}
 \item
 {\sc Because the program is licensed free of charge, there is no warranty
 for the program, to the extent permitted by applicable law. Except when
 otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or other parties
 provide the program ``as is'' without warranty of any kind, either expressed
 or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
 merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The entire risk as
 to the quality and performance of the program is with you. Should the
 program prove defective, you assume the cost of all necessary servicing,
 repair or correction.}
 \item {\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to
     in writing will any copyright holder, or any other party who may
     modify and/or redistribute the program as permitted above, be
     liable to you for damages, including any general, special,
     incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use or
     inability to use the program (including but not limited to loss of
     data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses sustained by you
     or third parties or a failure of the program to operate with any
     other programs), even if such holder or other party has been
     advised of the possibility of such damages.}
 \end{enumerate}
 \begin{center}
 {\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
 \end{center}
 \vfill
 \pagebreak[4]
 \section*{Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs}
 If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
 possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
 Free Software which everyone can redistribute and change under these
 terms.
   To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to
   attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey
   the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
   ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
 \begin{quote}
 one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
 Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
 This program is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 (at your option) any later version.
 This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 GNU General Public License for more details.
 You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
 Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA.
 \end{quote}
 Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
 If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
 when it starts in an interactive mode:
 \begin{quote}
 Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) yyyy  name of author \\
 Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'. \\
 This is Free Software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
 under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
 \end{quote}
 The hypothetical commands {\tt show w} and {\tt show c} should show the
 appropriate parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands
 you use may be called something other than {\tt show w} and {\tt show c};
 they could even be mouse-clicks or menu items---whatever suits your
 program.
 You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
 school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the program, if
 necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
 \begin{quote}
 Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
 `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
 signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1989 \\
 Ty Coon, President of Vice
 \end{quote}
 This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program
 into proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you
 may consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications
 with the library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library
 General Public License instead of this License.
 \chapter{The GNU Lesser General Public License}
 \begin{center}
 {\parindent 0in
 Version 2.1, February 1999
 Copyright \copyright\ 1991, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
 \bigskip
 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307, USA
 \bigskip
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
 \bigskip
 [This is the first released version of the Lesser GPL. It also counts
  as the successor of the GNU Library Public License version 2, hence
  the version number 2.1.]
+}
 \end{center}
 \begin{center}
 {\bf\large Preamble}
 \end{center}
 The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to
 share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public Licenses are
 intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change Free Software---to
 make sure the software is free for all its users.
 This license, the Lesser General Public License, applies to some specially
 designated software packages---typically libraries---of the Free Software
 Foundation and other authors who decide to use it. You can use it too,
 but we suggest you first think carefully about whether this license or the
 ordinary General Public License is the better strategy to use in any
 particular case, based on the explanations below.
 When we speak of Free Software, we are referring to freedom of use, not
 price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
 have the freedom to distribute copies of Free Software (and charge for
 this service if you wish); that you receive source code or can get it if
 you want it; that you can change the software and use pieces of it in new
 Free programs; and that you are informed that you can do these things.
 To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
 distributors to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender these
 rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you
 if you distribute copies of the library or if you modify it.
 For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or
 for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you.
 You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If
 you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object
 files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library
 after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show
 them these terms so they know their rights.
 We protect your rights with a two-step method: (1) we copyright the
 library, and (2) we offer you this license, which gives you legal
 permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the library.
 To protect each distributor, we want to make it very clear that there is
 no warranty for the Free library. Also, if the library is modified by
 someone else and passed on, the recipients should know that what they have
 is not the original version, so that the original author's reputation will
 not be affected by problems that might be introduced by others.
 Finally, software patents pose a constant threat to the existence of any
 Free program. We wish to make sure that a company cannot effectively
 restrict the users of a Free program by obtaining a restrictive license
 from a patent holder. Therefore, we insist that any patent license
 obtained for a version of the library must be consistent with the full
 freedom of use specified in this license.
 Most GNU software, including some libraries, is covered by the ordinary
 GNU General Public License. This license, the GNU Lesser General Public
 License, applies to certain designated libraries, and is quite different
 from the ordinary General Public License. We use this license for certain
 libraries in order to permit linking those libraries into non-Free
 programs.
 When a program is linked with a library, whether statically or using a
 shared library, the combination of the two is legally speaking a combined
 work, a derivative of the original library. The ordinary General Public
 License therefore permits such linking only if the entire combination fits
 its criteria of freedom. The Lesser General Public License permits more
 lax criteria for linking other code with the library.
 We call this license the ``Lesser'' General Public License because it does
 Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public
 License. It also provides other Free Software developers Less of an
 advantage over competing non-Free programs. These disadvantages are the
 reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries.
 However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special
 circumstances.
 For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage
 the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a
 de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-Free programs must be allowed to
 use the library. A more frequent case is that a Free library does the
 same job as widely used non-Free libraries. In this case, there is little
 to gain by limiting the Free library to Free Software only, so we use the
 Lesser General Public License.
 In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-Free
 programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of Free
 software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-Free
 programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system,
 as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
 Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the
 users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked
 with the library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program
 using a modified version of the library.
 The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
 modification follow. Pay close attention to the difference between a
 ``work based on the library'' and a ``work that uses the library.''  The
 former contains code derived from the library, whereas the latter must be
 combined with the library in order to run.
 \begin{center}
 {\Large \sc GNU Lesser General Public License} \\
 {\Large \sc Terms and Conditions For Copying, Distribution and
   Modification}
 \end{center}
 \begin{enumerate}
 \addtocounter{enumi}{-1}
 \item
 This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program
 which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized
 party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General
 Public License (also called ``this License''). Each licensee is addressed
 as ``you.''
 A ``library'' means a collection of software functions and/or data
 prepared so as to be conveniently linked with application programs (which
 use some of those functions and data) to form executables.
 The ``library,'' below, refers to any such software library or work which
 has been distributed under these terms. A ``work based on the library''
 means either the library or any derivative work under copyright law: that
 is to say, a work containing the library or a portion of it, either
 verbatim or with modifications and/or translated straightforwardly into
 another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without
 limitation in the term ``modification.'')
 ``Source code'' for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
 modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means all the
 source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
 definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
 installation of the library.
 Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
 covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running a
 program using the library is not restricted, and output from such a
 program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
 library (independent of the use of the library in a tool for writing it).
 Whether that is true depends on what the library does and what the program
 that uses the library does.
 \item
 You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the library's complete
 source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
 conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
 copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices
 that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and
 distribute a copy of this License along with the library.
 You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
 and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
 fee.
 \item
 You may modify your copy or copies of the library or any portion of it,
 thus forming a work based on the library, and copy and distribute such
 modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that
 you also meet all of these conditions:
 \begin{enumerate}
   \item
     The modified work must itself be a software library.
   \item
     You must cause the files modified to carry prominent notices stating
     that you changed the files and the date of any change.
   \item
     You must cause the whole of the work to be licensed at no charge to
     all third parties under the terms of this License.
   \item
     If a facility in the modified library refers to a function or a table
     of data to be supplied by an application program that uses the
     facility, other than as an argument passed when the facility is
     invoked, then you must make a good faith effort to ensure that, in the
     event an application does not supply such function or table, the
     facility still operates, and performs whatever part of its purpose
     remains meaningful.
 (For example, a function in a library to compute square roots has a
 purpose that is entirely well-defined independent of the application.
 Therefore, Subsection 2d requires that any application-supplied function
 or table used by this function must be optional: if the application does
 not supply it, the square root function must still compute square roots.)
 \end{enumerate}
 These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
 sections of that work are not derived from the library, and can be
 reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then
 this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
 distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
 sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the library, the
 distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
 permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
 each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
 Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
 rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise
 the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works
 based on the library.
 In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the library
 with the library (or with a work based on the library) on a volume of a
 storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
 scope of this License.
 \item
 You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License
 instead of this License to a given copy of the library. To do this, you
 must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer
 to the ordinary GNU General Public License version 2, instead of to this
 License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General
 Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if
 you wish.)  Do not make any other change in these notices.
 Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that
 copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent
 copies and derivative works made from that copy.
 This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the
 library into a program that is not a library.
 \item
 You may copy and distribute the library (or a portion or derivative of it,
 under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
 Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you accompany it with the complete
 corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed
 under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for
 software interchange.
 If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a
 designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code
 from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source
 code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along
 with the object code.
 \item
 A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the library, but
 is designed to work with the library by being compiled or linked with it,
 is called a ``work that uses the library.''  Such a work, in isolation, is
 not a derivative work of the library, and therefore falls outside the
 scope of this License.
 However, linking a ``work that uses the library'' with the library creates
 an executable that is a derivative of the library (because it contains
 portions of the library), rather than a ``work that uses the library.''
 The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states
 terms for distribution of such executables.
 When a ``work that uses the library'' uses material from a header file
 that is part of the library, the object code for the work may be a
 derivative work of the library even though the source code is not.
 Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be linked
 without the library, or if the work is itself a library. The threshold
 for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
 If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data structure
 layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline functions (ten
 lines or less in length), then the use of the object file is unrestricted,
 regardless of whether it is legally a derivative work. (Executables
 containing this object code plus portions of the library will still fall
 under Section 6.)
 Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the library, you may distribute
 the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6. Any
 executables containing that work also fall under Section 6, whether or not
 they are linked directly with the library itself.
 \item
 As an exception to the Sections above, you may also combine or link a
 ``work that uses the library'' with the library to produce a work
 containing portions of the library, and distribute that work under terms
 of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification of the work
 for the customer's own use and reverse engineering for debugging such
 modifications.
 You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the library
 is used in it and that the library and its use are covered by this
 License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during
 execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright
 notice for the library among them, as well as a reference directing the
 user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
 \begin{enumerate}
   \item
     Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable
     source code for the library including whatever changes were used in
     the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above);
     and, if the work is an executable linked with the library, with the
     complete machine-readable ``work that uses the library,'' as object
     code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the library and
     then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified
     library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of
     definitions files in the library will not necessarily be able to
     recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)
   \item
     Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the library.
     A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
     library already present on the user's computer system, rather than
     copying library functions into the executable, and (2) will operate
     properly with a modified version of the library, if the user installs
     one, as long as the modified version is interface-compatible with the
     version that the work was made with.
   \item
     Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three
     years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a,
     above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this
     distribution.
   \item
     If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy from a
     designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above specified
     materials from the same place.
   \item
     Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or
     that you have already sent this user a copy.
 \end{enumerate}
 For an executable, the required form of the ``work that uses the library''
 must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
 executable from it. However, as a special exception, the materials to be
 distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in
 either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel,
 and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
 that component itself accompanies the executable.
 It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions
 of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
 operating system. Such a contradiction means you cannot use both them and
 the library together in an executable that you distribute.
 \item
 You may place library facilities that are a work based on the library
 side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities
 not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library,
 provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the library
 and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided
 that you do these two things:
 \begin{enumerate}
    \item
      Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on
      the library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must
      be distributed under the terms of the Sections above.
    \item
      Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part
      of it is a work based on the library, and explaining where to find
      the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
 \end{enumerate}
 \item
   You may not copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
   library except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
   otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense, link with, or distribute the
   library is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this
   License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you
   under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as
   such parties remain in full compliance.
 \item
   You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed
   it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
   the library or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by
   law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or
   distributing the library (or any work based on the library), you
   indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and
   conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the library or works
   based on it.
 \item
   Each time you redistribute the library (or any work based on the
   library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
   original licensor to copy, distribute, link with or modify the library
   subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
   restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
   You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with
   this License.
 \item
   If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
   infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
   conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
   otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
   excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
   distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
   License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
   may not distribute the library at all. For example, if a patent license
   would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the library by all those
   who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way
   you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely
   from distribution of the library.
   If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
   any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
   apply, and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
   circumstances.
   It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
   patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
   such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
   integrity of the Free Software distribution system which is implemented
   by public license practices. Many people have made generous
   contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
   system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to
   the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute
   software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that
   choice.
   This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be
   a consequence of the rest of this License.
 % \pagebreak[4]
 \item
   If the distribution and/or use of the library is restricted in certain
   countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original
   copyright holder who places the library under this License may add an
   explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries,
   so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus
   excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if
   written in the body of this License.
 \item
   The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
   the Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new versions
   will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in
   detail to address new problems or concerns.
   Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the library
   specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and ``any
   later version,'' you have the option of following the terms and
   conditions either of that version or of any later version published by
   the Free Software Foundation. If the library does not specify a license
   version number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free
   Software Foundation.
 \item
   If you wish to incorporate parts of the library into other Free programs
   whose distribution conditions are incompatible with these, write to the
   author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the
   Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we
   sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the
   two goals of preserving the Free status of all derivatives of our Free
   software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
 \begin{center}
 {\Large\sc
 No Warranty
+}
 \end{center}
 \item
 {\sc Because the library is licensed free of charge, there is no
 warranty for the library, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
 Except when otherwise stated in writing the copyright holders and/or
 other parties provide the library ``as is'' without warranty of any
 kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the
 implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
 purpose. The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the
 library is with you. should the library prove defective, you assume
 the cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.}
 % \pagebreak[4]
 \item
 {\sc In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing
   will any copyright holder, or any other party who may modify and/or
   redistribute the library as permitted above, be liable to you for
   damages, including any general, special, incidental or consequential
   damages arising out of the use or inability to use the library
   (including but not limited to loss of data or data being rendered
   inaccurate or losses sustained by you or third parties or a failure of
   the library to operate with any other software), even if such holder or
   other party has been advised of the possibility of such damages.}
 \end{enumerate}
 \begin{center}
 {\Large\sc End of Terms and Conditions}
 \end{center}
 \vfill
 \pagebreak[4]
 \section*{How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries}
 If you develop a new library, and you want it to be of the greatest
 possible use to the public, we recommend making it Free Software that
 everyone can redistribute and change. You can do so by permitting
 redistribution under these terms (or, alternatively, under the terms of
 the ordinary General Public License).
 To apply these terms, attach the following notices to the library. It is
 safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
 convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the
 ``copyright'' line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
 \begin{quote}
 one line to give the library's name and a brief idea of what it does. \\
 Copyright (C) year  name of author \\
 This library is Free Software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
 under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by
 the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at
 your option) any later version.
 This library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
 WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
 or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU Lesser General Public
 License for more details.
 You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public License
 along with this library; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
 Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
 \end{quote}
 Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
 You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
 school, if any, to sign a ``copyright disclaimer'' for the library, if
 necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
 \begin{quote}
 Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program \\
 `Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker. \\
 signature of Ty Coon, 1 April 1990 \\
 Ty Coon, President of Vice
 \end{quote}
 That's all there is to it!
 % =====================================================================
 % END OF FIRST DAY SEMINAR SECTION
 % =====================================================================
 \end{document}

0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)