Re: [SUBMISSION] AI-MIT License 1 .0 — permissive license for AI-generated code
Bruce Perens via License-discuss <[email protected]> Tue, 17 Mar 2026 12:38:18 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAK2MWOsezeVwJfSeypjV2XCMsVHXSn-TBWjp9U15K6jebEOjuA@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============6382271009351004740== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d53804064d3d7ab1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --000000000000d53804064d3d7ab1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is why I started deprecating Open Hardware licenses. Schematics are not currently copyrightable, and what if they were? Perhaps Horowitz and Hill's "Art of Electronics" textbook would be collecting royalties from every electronic product worldwide. Bruce Perens K6BP On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 11:25 Henrik Ingo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, it's been a few years since I was active here, have been heads > down in startup mode. > > I have a policy opinion, which is independent of this particular license > submission,but very relevant: > > OSI should not approve any licenses that are specifically targeting code > produced by an AI, and should be careful in adding clauses to existing OS= S > licenses as well. (The latter may turn out to be necessary, but if it > becomes necessary, OSI should first go through clear policy guidelines on > wording that may and may not be used in such clauses.) > > As Nik also correctly observes, code generated by an AI is in general > considered to not be copyrighted at all. (This is a) because legislators > were of the opinion a machine or software program cannot, by definition, > produce a creative work , and b) even if they could, they are not human s= o > they cannot own property, material or immaterial. For the same reason > animals cannot own copyright either.) > > Projecting into a very near future, most code will be generated by AI, an= d > therefore most code will not be copyrighted. If we go back to our roots o= f > our movement, with Stallman and a printer driver and so on... this is the > dream come true! We should embrace and defend this future, and I for one = am > thankful it is happening in my lifetime. > > Approving and using a license such as the one proposed in this thread > would be a terrible own goal to make at this point. OSS licenses mostly > deal with copyright, so since there is no copyright, there is no need for= a > license. In particular, using words like "permission is hereby granted" i= s > hugely misleading: The user of the software does not need to ask for > permission, and in any case the person putting the license into the git > repository is not in a position to grant such permission. However, doing = so > could very well create precedent, or a habit, that some kind of license i= s > still needed, and that could be misused by a proprietary software company > to claim that their restrictive license must also be followed. > > Finally, a good reason for the OSI not to approve such licenses - at leas= t > until further discussion - is that it is out of scope. OSI does not have = a > mandate to review or approve such licenses. Since AI generated code is no= t > copyrighted, it isn't really open source nor closed source. (It might be > the latter, but certtainly isn't open source.) Since it isn't open source= , > it is not within OSIs mandate. > > > I agree that it might become necessary to make some clarifying statement > about the above situation. As such, OSI may want to recommend some short > informational statement explaining that some body of code was fully or > mostly generated by AI, and therefore is not copyrighted, and therefore t= he > reader is free to copy, use, etc... the program(s). And if there is such = a > statement, it could also come with a disclaimer that further emphasises t= he > point by saying that since the software was not produced and is not > copyrighted by a human, there is also no person that could be held liable > for any kind of malfunction or damage. (Except of course if a distributor > of the software specifically wants to offer such warranty, perhaps agains= t > a fee.) > > henrik > > > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 2:32=E2=80=AFPM Nik <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Apologize, my mistake. I'm new to mailing lists and sent this to both >> addresses. >> This proposal is currently up for discussion, and if the community >> agrees, the final text can be submitted for review and registration afte= r >> discussion, as I understand it. >> >> Nik >> >> =D0=BF=D1=82, 13 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80. 2026=E2=80=AF=D0=B3. =D0=B2 18:32, = Pamela Chestek < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> McCoy, I also have an email where it was submitted to license-review on >>> 3/12/26 at 5:30 pm PT? >>> >>> Pam >>> >>> On 3/13/2026 9:10 AM, McCoy Smith wrote: >>> >>> Nik: >>> >>> Are you requesting approval of this license by OSI, or just discussion >>> of the license? You've submitted to the license-discuss list, which is >>> where licenses are discussed, but does not result in the license being = put >>> through the approval process. Your statement that you are "submitting" = the >>> license "for consideration" is ambiguous. >>> >>> If you are seeking approval, you need to use the correct mailing list >>> and provide all the data required for a submission, which has not been = done >>> in your e-mail below. >>> On 3/12/2026 4:20 AM, Nik wrote: >>> >>> Dear OSI License Review Committee, >>> >>> I am submitting the **AI-MIT License, Version 1.0** for consideration b= y >>> the Open Source Initiative. >>> >>> ## Summary >>> >>> The AI-MIT License is a permissive open-source license designed to >>> address a genuine gap: existing licenses were written for human authors= and >>> handle AI-generated code poorly, creating false implications about >>> authorship and copyright status. >>> >>> The license is deliberately minimal =E2=80=94 it preserves the structur= e and >>> permissiveness of the MIT License while adding three targeted changes f= or >>> the AI context. >>> >>> ## The problem it solves >>> >>> 1. **False authorship implication.** When `Copyright (c) [year] >>> [author]` is applied to fully AI-generated code, it implies human >>> authorship and copyright that may not legally exist in most jurisdictio= ns. >>> >>> 2. **No standard for disclosure.** There is no widely adopted mechanism >>> for disclosing whether code is AI-generated, AI-assisted, or >>> human-authored. This matters for supply-chain security, regulatory >>> compliance (EU AI Act), and intellectual honesty in open source. >>> >>> 3. **Undefined copyright status.** Fully autonomous AI-generated code >>> (no human creative input) is in a legal grey zone in most jurisdictions= . A >>> license that claims copyright over it is at best misleading, at worst >>> invalid. >>> >>> ## What the license does differently from MIT >>> >>> The license adds one structural element (the Authorship Declaration) an= d >>> three conditions/clauses: >>> >>> **Authorship Declaration** =E2=80=94 a required checkbox at the top of = the >>> LICENSE file with three modes: >>> - *Fully AI-generated*: no copyright claimed; code dedicated to public >>> domain >>> - *AI-assisted*: human-directed, AI-generated; standard copyright appli= es >>> - *Human-authored*: AI used as a tool only; identical to MIT posture >>> >>> **Condition 2 =E2=80=94 Transparency**: redistribution or use as AI tra= ining >>> data must not misrepresent AI origin as human authorship. >>> >>> **Condition 3 =E2=80=94 No Copyright Claim**: for fully autonomous code= , >>> explicit public domain dedication (with a perpetual irrevocable fallbac= k >>> for jurisdictions where public domain dedication is impossible). >>> >>> **Extended disclaimer**: adds three AI-specific disclaimers about >>> training data provenance, regulatory compliance, and jurisdictional >>> limitations of the authorship declaration. >>> >>> ## OSD compliance analysis >>> >>> 1. **Free Redistribution** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 no restriction on sale o= r distribution >>> 2. **Source Code** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 no source restriction >>> 3. **Derived Works** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 modification and redistributio= n permitted >>> 4. **Integrity of the Author's Source Code** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 no pat= ch-file >>> requirement; attribution preserved >>> 5. **No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups** =E2=9C=93 >>> 6. **No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor** =E2=9C=93 >>> 7. **Distribution of License** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 same rights apply to= all recipients >>> 8. **License Must Not Be Specific to a Product** =E2=9C=93 >>> 9. **License Must Not Restrict Other Software** =E2=9C=93 >>> 10. **License Must Be Technology-Neutral** =E2=9C=93 >>> >>> The Transparency condition (Condition 2) requires disclosure of AI >>> origin but does not restrict use in any field =E2=80=94 it is an >>> attribution/honesty requirement, not a field-of-endeavor restriction. >>> >>> ## SPDX identifier >>> >>> We are concurrently requesting the SPDX identifier `AI-MIT-1.0` through >>> the SPDX GitHub repository. >>> >>> ## Repository >>> >>> The full license text, README, translations, and supporting materials >>> are available at: >>> https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit-license >>> >>> ## A note on meta-context >>> >>> This license was initially drafted with AI assistance (Claude, >>> Anthropic) at the direction of a human. We believe this is appropriate = and >>> have disclosed it in the repository. The license is itself an example o= f >>> the category of work it governs. >>> >>> We welcome feedback from the committee and the community at large. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> Nik >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not ne= cessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the O= pen Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. >>> >>> License-discuss mailing [email protected]://= lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not ne= cessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the O= pen Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. >>> >>> License-discuss mailing [email protected]://= lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not >>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by= the >>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email >>> address. >>> >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.open= source.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not >> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by = the >> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address= . >> >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opens= ource.org >> > _______________________________________________ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by t= he > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.openso= urce.org > --000000000000d53804064d3d7ab1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto"><div>This is why I started deprecating Open Hardware lice= nses. Schematics are not currently copyrightable, and what if they were? Pe= rhaps Horowitz and Hill's "Art of Electronics" textbook would= be collecting royalties from every electronic product worldwide.=C2=A0</di= v><div><br></div><div data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><= div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div></div></div></div></div><br><di= v class=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gma= il_attr">On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 11:25 Henrik Ingo <<a href=3D"mailto:henr= [email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquot= e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol= id;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi all, it's been a few year= s since I was active here, have been heads down in startup mode.</div><div>= <br></div><div>I have a policy opinion, which is independent of this partic= ular license submission,but very relevant:</div><div><br></div><div>OSI sho= uld not approve any licenses that are specifically targeting code produced = by an AI, and should be careful in adding clauses to existing OSS licenses = as well. (The latter may turn out to be necessary, but if it becomes necess= ary, OSI should first go through clear policy guidelines on wording that ma= y and may not be used in such clauses.)</div><div><br></div><div>As Nik als= o correctly observes, code generated by an AI is in general considered to n= ot be copyrighted at all. (This is a) because legislators were of the opini= on a machine or software program cannot, by definition, produce a creative = work , and b) even if they could, they are not human so they cannot own pro= perty, material or immaterial. For the same reason animals cannot own copyr= ight either.)</div><div><br></div><div>Projecting into a very near future, = most code will be generated by AI, and therefore most code will not be copy= righted. If we go back to our roots of our movement, with Stallman and a pr= inter driver and so on... this is the dream come true! We should embrace an= d defend this future, and I for one am thankful it is happening in my lifet= ime.</div><div><br></div><div>Approving and using a license such as the one= proposed in this thread would be a terrible own goal to make at this point= . OSS licenses mostly deal with copyright, so since there is no copyright, = there is no need for a license. In particular, using words like "permi= ssion is hereby granted" is hugely misleading: The user of the softwar= e does not need to ask for permission, and in any case the person putting t= he license into the git repository is not in a position to grant such permi= ssion. However, doing so could very well create precedent, or a habit, that= some kind of license is still needed, and that could be misused by a propr= ietary software company to claim that their restrictive license must also b= e followed.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, a good reason for the OSI not= to approve such licenses - at least until further discussion - is that it = is out of scope. OSI does not have a mandate to review or approve such lice= nses. Since AI generated code is not copyrighted, it isn't really open = source nor closed source. (It might be the latter, but certtainly isn't= open source.) Since it isn't open source, it is not within OSIs mandat= e.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree that it might become nec= essary to make some clarifying statement about the above situation. As such= , OSI may want to recommend some short informational statement explaining t= hat some body of code was fully or mostly generated by AI, and therefore is= not copyrighted, and therefore the reader is free to copy, use, etc... the= program(s). And if there is such a statement, it could also come with a di= sclaimer that further emphasises the point by saying that since the softwar= e was not produced and is not copyrighted by a human, there is also no pers= on that could be held liable for any kind of malfunction or damage. (Except= of course if a distributor of the software specifically wants to offer suc= h warranty, perhaps against a fee.)</div><div><br></div><div>henrik</div><d= iv><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir= =3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 2:32=E2=80=AFPM Nik &= lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"norefer= rer">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmai= l_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,20= 4,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Apologize, my mistake. I'm ne= w to mailing lists and sent this to both addresses.<br>This proposal is cur= rently up for discussion, and if the community agrees, the final text can b= e submitted for review and registration after discussion, as I understand i= t.<div><br></div><div>Nik</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div di= r=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">=D0=BF=D1=82, 13 =D0=BC=D0=B0=D1=80. 2026=E2= =80=AF=D0=B3. =D0=B2 18:32, Pamela Chestek <<a href=3D"mailto:pamela.che= [email protected]" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">pamela.chestek@op= ensource.org</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m= argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left= :1ex"><u></u> =20 =20 =20 <div> McCoy, I also have an email where it was submitted to license-review on 3/12/26 at 5:30 pm PT?<br> <br> Pam<br> <br> <div>On 3/13/2026 9:10 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> =20 <p>Nik:</p> <p>Are you requesting approval of this license by OSI, or just discussion of the license? You've submitted to the license-discuss list, which is where licenses are discussed, but does not result in the license being put through the approval process. Your statement that you are "submitting" the lic= ense "for consideration" is ambiguous.</p> <p>If you are seeking approval, you need to use the correct mailing list and provide all the data required for a submission, which has not been done in your e-mail below.</p> <div>On 3/12/2026 4:20 AM, Nik wrote:<br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite"> =20 <div dir=3D"ltr">Dear OSI License Review Committee,<br> <br> I am submitting the **AI-MIT License, Version 1.0** for consideration by the Open Source Initiative.<br> <br> ## Summary<br> <br> The AI-MIT License is a permissive open-source license designed to address a genuine gap: existing licenses were written for human authors and handle AI-generated code poorly, creating false implications about authorship and copyright status.<br> <br> The license is deliberately minimal =E2=80=94 it preserves the structure and permissiveness of the MIT License while adding three targeted changes for the AI context.<br> <br> ## The problem it solves<br> <br> 1. **False authorship implication.** When `Copyright (c) [year] [author]` is applied to fully AI-generated code, it implies human authorship and copyright that may not legally exist in most jurisdictions.<br> <br> 2. **No standard for disclosure.** There is no widely adopted mechanism for disclosing whether code is AI-generated, AI-assisted, or human-authored. This matters for supply-chain security, regulatory compliance (EU AI Act), and intellectual honesty in open source.<br> <br> 3. **Undefined copyright status.** Fully autonomous AI-generated code (no human creative input) is in a legal grey zone in most jurisdictions. A license that claims copyright over it is at best misleading, at worst invalid.<br> <br> ## What the license does differently from MIT<br> <br> The license adds one structural element (the Authorship Declaration) and three conditions/clauses:<br> <br> **Authorship Declaration** =E2=80=94 a required checkbox at the t= op of the LICENSE file with three modes:<br> - *Fully AI-generated*: no copyright claimed; code dedicated to public domain<br> - *AI-assisted*: human-directed, AI-generated; standard copyright applies<br> - *Human-authored*: AI used as a tool only; identical to MIT posture<br> <br> **Condition 2 =E2=80=94 Transparency**: redistribution or use as = AI training data must not misrepresent AI origin as human authorship.<br> <br> **Condition 3 =E2=80=94 No Copyright Claim**: for fully autonomou= s code, explicit public domain dedication (with a perpetual irrevocable fallback for jurisdictions where public domain dedication is impossible).<br> <br> **Extended disclaimer**: adds three AI-specific disclaimers about training data provenance, regulatory compliance, and jurisdictional limitations of the authorship declaration.<br> <br> ## OSD compliance analysis<br> <br> 1. **Free Redistribution** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 no restriction on = sale or distribution<br> 2. **Source Code** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 no source restriction<br> 3. **Derived Works** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 modification and redistr= ibution permitted<br> 4. **Integrity of the Author's Source Code** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80= =94 no patch-file requirement; attribution preserved<br> 5. **No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups** =E2=9C=93<br> 6. **No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor** =E2=9C=93<br> 7. **Distribution of License** =E2=9C=93 =E2=80=94 same rights ap= ply to all recipients<br> 8. **License Must Not Be Specific to a Product** =E2=9C=93<br> 9. **License Must Not Restrict Other Software** =E2=9C=93<br> 10. **License Must Be Technology-Neutral** =E2=9C=93<br> <br> The Transparency condition (Condition 2) requires disclosure of AI origin but does not restrict use in any field =E2=80=94 it = is an attribution/honesty requirement, not a field-of-endeavor restriction.<br> <br> ## SPDX identifier <div><br> We are concurrently requesting the SPDX identifier `AI-MIT-1.0` through the SPDX GitHub repository.<br> <br> ## Repository</div> <div><br> The full license text, README, translations, and supporting materials are available at: =C2=A0<br> <a href=3D"https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit-license" ta= rget=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit= -license</a><br> <br> ## A note on meta-context</div> <div><br> This license was initially drafted with AI assistance (Claude, Anthropic) at the direction of a human. We believe this is appropriate and have disclosed it in the repository. The license is itself an example of the category of work it governs.<br> <br> We welcome feedback from the committee and the community at large.<br> <br> Respectfully, =C2=A0<font color=3D"#888888"><font color=3D"#888= 888"><br> Nik=C2=A0=C2=A0</font></font></div> </div> <br> <fieldset></fieldset> <pre>_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necess= arily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open = Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href=3D"http://opensource.org" ta= rget=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">opensource.org</a> email address. License-discuss mailing list <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" r= el=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a> <a href=3D"http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lis= ts.opensource.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">http://lists.openso= urce.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> <fieldset></fieldset> <pre>_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necess= arily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open = Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href=3D"http://opensource.org" ta= rget=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">opensource.org</a> email address. License-discuss mailing list <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" r= el=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a> <a href=3D"http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lis= ts.opensource.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">http://lists.openso= urce.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> </div> _______________________________________________<br> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necess= arily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open = Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href=3D"http://opensource.org" re= l=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">opensource.org</a> email addr= ess.<br> <br> License-discuss mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" r= el=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br> <a href=3D"http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lis= ts.opensource.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://l= ists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</= a><br> </blockquote></div> _______________________________________________<br> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necess= arily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open = Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href=3D"http://opensource.org" re= l=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">opensource.org</a> email addr= ess.<br> <br> License-discuss mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" r= el=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br> <a href=3D"http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lis= ts.opensource.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://l= ists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</= a><br> </blockquote></div> _______________________________________________<br> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necess= arily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open = Source Initiative will be sent from an <a href=3D"http://opensource.org" re= l=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">opensource.org</a> email addr= ess.<br> <br> License-discuss mailing list<br> <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank" r= el=3D"noreferrer">[email protected]</a><br> <a href=3D"http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lis= ts.opensource.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://l= ists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</= a><br> </blockquote></div> --000000000000d53804064d3d7ab1-- --===============6382271009351004740== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVGhlIG9waW5p b25zIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBu b3QgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHkgdGhvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUuIE9mZmlj aWFsIHN0YXRlbWVudHMgYnkgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUgd2lsbCBiZSBzZW50 IGZyb20gYW4gb3BlbnNvdXJjZS5vcmcgZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzcy4KCkxpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3VzcyBt YWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKTGljZW5zZS1kaXNjdXNzQGxpc3RzLm9wZW5zb3VyY2Uub3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9s aXN0cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3Vzc19saXN0 cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZwo= --===============6382271009351004740==--