From 0ca30ccabda3a5417a0cb4190006a876a601d946 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:26:46 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Added new version of book which incorporates Wynne's edits
 and the SF082400 schedule, and formatting changes.

---
 GPL-LGPL/fsf-logo.eps     | 1044 +++++++++++
 GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex | 3513 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 4557 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 GPL-LGPL/fsf-logo.eps
 create mode 100644 GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex

diff --git a/GPL-LGPL/fsf-logo.eps b/GPL-LGPL/fsf-logo.eps
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7b3b30
--- /dev/null
+++ b/GPL-LGPL/fsf-logo.eps
@@ -0,0 +1,1044 @@
+%!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
+10 dict begin
+%%EndProlog
+%%Page: 1 1
+% Translate for offset
+14.173228 14.173228 translate
+% Translate to begin of first scanline
+0.000000 53.280001 translate
+143.140300 -53.280001 scale
+% Image geometry
+900 335 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%
+13@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$OI(E#m^eC%LWLH#mUbE#RCbB%0m)pp\tVW#7LnG$
+3pqF$3l=]rsr'9#7CkG"q1qG#n%+H#7L,&),CSH#7LkG#mLkF#m^hF!Y,ME$j[%D$j\'<rr`rB%
+0m4=$5![Q"qLhA#7;"N"V(bF#R_)XJcC<$JcC<$JcERdn,FP`#m^e@$O[4L#m^\B#mh.K#R:VA%
+1EXM$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
+6ot20F&!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#
+7(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<$JcEXfn,FNbKSkP?M
+2@"HI23%r#RC_C#RgkFAW_n+LPU\>LPLM<p&>@<#RC_C$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
+7X&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#
+7LhD)"@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<$JcE:\kPkl2$
+4@+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:$31=qrrY(d$
+4?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$4."E$
+4."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$4.%K#lY22#lb57#o4UYDW:[!)@?fX$
+2t8B#m^nF$4.(L"q1bQ)EU`8JcC<$JcC<$JcDhOkl1uq#7CeH#mq(J#;#0?%>G2u$jd:L$jm:F%
+1@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$OdCO$
+3q"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$4%sBs8NE3#
+7_(I$jR.KLZe[FM@'_"$jI+J%0m8kf)PaXrsAr9$47%L$6+QrJcC<$JcC<$TE"0U$AJll%LNUR$
+4I5llMh7B#mh+I$4I.K$O;IMrsOYm$3q(J$4-tF%#<F6!#PV@"pbPF$3pnWJcC<$JcC<$JcDABl
+2M*6&I8aM$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!
+8Hl?$&f>u#n77K#7O?"rsB;C$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
+6]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%
+0m.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
+0WRo*=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;>#
+7(_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#
+71VC#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$jm7G#mq"G#RChE$
+4R7I%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$$qGmjre#R:eD$
+48YAs+13$s+13$s+13<s7$$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$s+138s
+7QC!L^XS"$O@+F"pY`ks+13$s+13$s+137s7ZI#bmOgc$OI7L#S%,oJcC<$JcC<$JcC<$PlLIW$
+8`+u#RUkF"UkY[JcC<$JcC<$JcC<$PQ1CW$X!lD$k!@K#n%+JMLkeYs+13$s+13$s-*KXrsNEH$
+4%(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!
+5/=2"nM]n`f0'+rs^_"+;l+U/0GcO/gLmc_>aNe)ZC]U)XeUN(`aY:)CSR"KtREdR=tBil%Jkdq
+1Jj(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$>.-S!#Xr,%giRH#R^qK#
+721^)BU;RNPkbs*=2HJkm@.mq$@-/%%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/@#
+7(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$#
+7LnC%1!1G$4-qP_>aKQkm8".#R^qG#71YE":GSC"UkVB&4jUWrrEiDq$Pd]!t5M9s8W*,_[?b[#
+7V(H$OI(ZV>h.I*=)rZ$jd4J#mgqD$47(G$N:>4$46\=&.AmO$477H%1<FM$OI1P(XTtt&Ypo`$
+4I.J$j[7K#RUnF#RCh;$3(A1#n@:J#mpqF#mgtF$4%%I<lP(G*=*&[#mLbE$4.";$4@+H$jd4F$
+4I7J#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$
+3pnF#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=#
+71_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$
+4@*$_uB]TfEhlj$4-qE$3peE$<YXS!$(hBed2Bls8W&t";qXW#YUun#qH;j#m^hE$O[7/$3(A4$
+2Y)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#
+6kSA%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$
+4-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$
+4?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'$3s.\LkCJ;K802UnV.+%L
+4SUh"G;;^LPG>T%>fmuMM[=TK+eS!#mpt3#m(>;+3FNb^_-tZq$@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#!!&!#
+6tMBnHf=%$4$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#
+7M(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$47.Kr<iQ4rX&X+e,KT($
+4-tD$iUM2#mU\A$3gkD$T[#B!#tD6!=FR]rrF/JrWrQ1pB^p-$4.Whrrru=$jR(F#l+c/#RUrHl
+2Li`%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:$j[1J#R:hG$
+2Y&6#mUhH#7A8WrsLgn$O[:K#mgkC$4?b=rsJc6!=BUirra/D$jI(9$3(A0$3(@frr=#0$2k22L
+8t7W.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+
+70"/)[-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
+8t7Y3XQ-##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
+7cp#$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$k*FK$
+4E9>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=+
+79(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#
+7:_2#mLSA#n.%GM!t?J5R.W("q(_,#lt8<nc&s@#RgqG#mptE#mpS<!XT4,df0hM"qCqE$4%(H$
+3pkC#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#
+7U,/!Y#FQo)Atj#71eF#7(VCrX&T1!=BLfrso\K":5D?$3UP@$4@+G#Yt9s#?(g7$O-kC#P\T-#
+71llci4,*#RLeEoa([)$;U*j"5Z`["o/H3#7CeB$OI(G#R`WCrr@fQ$N1;0$Mk&/']8q^rs!u\$
+4R=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#
+71M?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
+3UfGd/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]($
+3: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$3peD$
+4$A5#7(YC$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$3ptD#7(\H#cl,J!!i*%rsAi6$
+4qjJrrF)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"]-$4.]errFMTp^%04#71YC#
+74u6rs=Yk%0m.G#7CkGnHf=+#RL`jpAYXt#RLeE#R^qG#mgqF#Rh?ort&rQ#RLhA$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+$
+2k22$,Z]EL'e1lrX/E,!t#>@)Sc:YFUAE\$jd4F$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$3pbHdf0?'#
+5JQ0$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$
+6%%d!$:_<rX&]5$WQ'a![%aUfa.Wg_Z'jd!sf2>#71e3#lkpYrrtXn$4-qA$MOi-$U"+^!"8Q.#
+7(YD$O-qA%/C24$OR.E)u'@?:'V%3$3phD#RUhCrWrR'df0=h$Mau4"q(bB$ju\"rrWT9$jcY8#
+7: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$k*=I%
+1!:Qdb4X*L^aUs#RLhFr<`K2"pkM?$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$@-1#mhN`rs&l=$
+3geA#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$3:I'_uBso#mptF#7(S.#lkpXrs(4\$O@(I#m^84rsJf5q#:F8$
+3pt7#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$@66#mUbD"ss0H"F:I_$
+4-V;#RUqF$4$tF$/X/2"&B71#l+c0$O$kF?h+-tL'S1^#m^eC#RChD$40kbrr>mp$N:A3$K29l#
+7CG:!XK0/bPqU%$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$OI18#lkmnrrc1*#mq%4#n@:J$
+4.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
+51\<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$3^kE"q:nD-2miD6MCck#7M(J"U5HMr;Qg/$
+4QY8!='"\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$jd.K":P/8oa(g1%1*IK%h.:o##5X:#RLhFr!<W9#RUqH#
+7CYWbPqS>n-K.%#oMS"![%gXnHf1>WrE-U#R^,/!=BgYrrjGN"pk_Gq$@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$
+4..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$
+4RIO"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'.!
+9*>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$%
+2T<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
+0Tp_#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%
+1Dk)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$
+47.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$
+4.%;$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@?$
+2k28!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).$
+3q"F$OI.G$W5XX#R^bF#m^eD%1)b9":YSB#9he#!JCjM#lkpErrRr]$M+Q*$4.<Qrs#8*%0m7J#
+4Dj!$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&$
+32$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.$
+5r10"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.#
+7M'trs2U/%1EUL#mpt6#m(G>#MoC^;$dO9r<WH2pB^g;lMh#(#6tV@#PeZ3$jm@J#n$bDLtht/$
+31D2$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%
+0g7hrs02B$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
+5(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%
+1!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?*$
+2k2B#mq"G#mq"G#mpqF$O@%C$L%j!$O.RMUAlVf#mq"I#7CbD#7CnH#mptE$3pqE$4I(G#m^qD$
+4$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
+5PGi$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$
+3h?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=#
+7V%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$
+4?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$46tE#l+c3&K2K&&Jl)ui>DS2"Vr'p#
+71\3#n@4G$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%<$3(A-$
+2t;2#lk>.$2Fu)$3(A2$0V]r$2Fr($2t:m$/#[M$2Fq]$2Fr($2Fo.$2t;3$24f&$2Fo.$2t;3$
+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>$3pqL(EQ@OJr,'YJcDGD"ndD!KnG92rrCLHrthWLs
+7s+6hYFt&s8T.sW.p4b_i9S2Lktb]q1o3.MMQtDIe!F=Mh_"^!.N8o$\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$7#cc$
+47.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=$31>,#nm^S$
+3pnG#7LtI":GPD',r9FL69(I#DrWo#n.4IrT4%\K*M\\$2t8X#mpnB#R:_C$O."F#7(VB#RgtF$
+4@.H$OI"F#mghD$4.%H$OZY8q$I<3#7(_H$&8$N!#>J?r<`K2!Xf9gec,n>'ab9Y!sf5Ar<NH2$
+4?\;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#
+9aN]$O@"HGier-M$j[uq[!Z<#mq(I#n%%F$jd=IrX'5B#RLbB$jmIK$jm4L#7:bC#lP&0#k83*$
+4@.F#RcFYrrErCq$I0.%#<L8%FlF-#R^kB#mh(H#RUn;#lY,2#RUG:rs8f8"pYMCrX&T0"UPPF#
+9@p?rsU^k#mgkD#mq"G$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$
+4$tE/EQm[LC"7o$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$4-tE#6tS@#
+7:_A#71bI',V_g)]9M-%1!7F#mpnD$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$N(28$
+4$tD$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$
+4$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$nE#R:_C$
+4@(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%
+1NUK$7*XOrrO2I$2t;3$2t83(t/EbLC4"erX&`8$4DRUrrO&E$N(2:#7CbE%0d%G$!YjX!J_$]$
+2b,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$k!@Gr<WH>k5PEaq[39.#RCeF"q1_D$
+4#&[$5j6Z#n."G$4.&pTE"m!#RUqH#n..J#_U>#&+U&<#R1PB$4.4L#Rh"G:u)'^cmT&+$4@.J$
+4%+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$3gkD#mUeD$
+4[>*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%^$4I7L$
+4.(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$jR1I$
+4%"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$7+d6!?DOG$
+2b,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#
+7(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$
+4@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$
+3pnD$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$
+5h4k!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,;%*[;#
+7(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$O7%D%(=F\%9<cE#
+71bB%1!.G$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$4@4K(Xi<aL(!tfrs8f6$
+4-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$53^QMuS/5"pt\D$
+4$nG#mU_C"uG'7$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:>@$4."C*rl8^('OsQ$
+4He>":YVA$YA/o!f.3ir<WT7$4.&nmJd3A$Mt,0$N:>3LXlD67g]P0%L37G#m^eD";0Pk(f1VF$
+47"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$
+4@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$
+2t;6#muBYrsK8B%LNLL$O[@N$\m+0!Xf;CrX/Z5rX&Z1)p&$g9aV=7#RpqD#R^tH#SHG'""+<[$
+2Y&1#T;(j$\o&r#mgqG#mh%HH1(\5)@6<L"UPMC#mq[Mrsf8A$OI"F$4..G#m^qD2;eE8L^OLe$
+2k22K^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$4."GLsuA5-
+3ska$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+#
+7: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$
+4@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$
+4%(L#R^kD$4%!/nG`K@pBgnTq>Uuu%1*@K#71eC#R^qH$OBPgrrn)_$4.%JrX&Z3LS+SS$OI.H$
+4."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$
+4.%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
+5Pd?$O7%J#RCeH#>"Xi$m#c]$jR(D#RLqG$'Ea;!f.-iq$@'-*7Xuh*=;ZOr<WN7#[m*#!uDCQ$
+2t;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$
+4.%G#R:_ED=.?3LC+=p#mgqF#mptGL=-#&<!j!2#mL_C#m^kFQ08/S/dMdi$3peC":gssrsV[4$
+3ghD#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$
+4C+hrre,b#7:\6$3U_D#mb+\rrRo`#Q+r/#m1MB#mfu!!Cm@l$2t84#7T&\$\o&r#mgqG#mpkB>
+42Cj)ZC$I$4."G$3qRDrsf>?$jd+H#mghF#7(\C''B3%M$aOr#mptI#R^lRmJdTM$4.%G#mptF$
+4$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*$
+47(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#\%
+1*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%
+0m1Ir<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!.
+427!$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
+8f;$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
+185#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
+1G>$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
+7.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/%#
+5)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
+8\`#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!$_#7
+1_B$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
+7(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
+21/#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$N1
+85#RLir`W$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
+3$6/(+%o!B:#mLeG#7CbB$jm4LkkP/coa)$8$3^hE$47([mJd0irX&o;$4-tF$OI,Wdf0AI"V(8
+6!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,
+2%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;$2b,2#U/U
+8!CI%g$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-$4?Y:!#jAe!)N:p!)`.`rX/Z
+3rsJc4":,;>#33c(%:9DK#m^hE$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
+6#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$Mk&
+0#Z0pg#AOVR#mq%F%/pM6%0[ThrrNH5$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#
+6k\(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%
+1*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%
+1!: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$
+46tG$3U_B%*d#r"W.RN#mgt<#m:SC#7JoFrsB5B#RLhG$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#
+9*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#
+7CnG$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$
+3U_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%"$
+46\=r<WHBeGfV<#RUq8#lt<.lMh>>#RLkB$47%H"q1eE#_C;$":Y_E#mpS<"UPMF%L=uZrsR'[$
+47.I#mq"G#oq\!'b^c]$47.I$O@(F%1*>)@Kd&G#71b:#lmSirr`Z;$OR7?#m1SB$Zj\p%VH.W%
+0m: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%
+1<%?"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$3sPprrET9r<`Z6$
+47(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$O6qD$
+4,e^rsCXj#mq"F$jR%G&DI-aI/XBX$OI%F#mphC$L?^O!=];5$Mt,0)V"cfG7+<UrsJZ1!)VnZ"
+6Kmt%/pV3#m1G?$>e5l%3>Z_"pk_I%L!.E#n%1*rsB8C$47(H#mq"G*7t2tC'tFU#mq(G$OR.:$
+2t;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$
+4?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%
+1*O'rsk.t"ptYB$j[7I#RUhEDr(Eq%g`OJrX&c9#71eGl2LiZ$OI.=#Qk;=#n,8_'HR\g$4$nG$
+4@+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#
+7ChF#6tQAlMh29"q(\B$3gkD#^Y&$"UbYI"UYM6$3LP@&A7-)"3(NT$2k50#lkjmrr@NB#lt<.j
+8T]h$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$471I"pkVE#n-P9!"&W3rsAZ3((:NT$
+4I4H#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$
+4%"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*$NCD5$
+4Qn>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$4-tG#7B,j#7(_G$
+4."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$
+4-tD$O-tF$O7(G#n7(D#7:kD%1WIIp^%rH#6tYC#RLnH"UbSC$3pnB$4%%G#7CnG#71eI$MXl3#
+71\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$
+2k5"#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#
+7K>o!=B/3#T3pU$3gkF#mpqE"V:qH#RLeE#7:bC#mh"IrWsDK#7(YD%0m:G#n.7L"UPVF#nI=K$
+47(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%
+13: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
diff --git a/GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex b/GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cba0e88
--- /dev/null
+++ b/GPL-LGPL/new-gpl-lgpl.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,3513 @@
+%      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}
+09:00 - 09:25 & Registration / Check-in / Continental Breakfast\\
+&\\
+09:25 - 09:30 & Welcome\\
+&\\
+09:30 - 10:00 & Free Software Principles and the Free Software Definition\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:00 - 10:10 & Preamble of the GNU General Public License (GPL)\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:10 - 10:35 & GPL, \S 0: Definitions, etc.\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:35 - 10:50 & GPL, \S 1: Grant for Verbatim Source Copying\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+10:50 - 11:00 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+11:00 - 11:10 & Break\\
+&\\
+11:10 - 11:55 & Derivative Works: Statute and Case Law\\
+& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
+&\\
+\end{tabular}
+
+\begin{tabular}[t]{ll}
+11:55 - 12:20 & GPL, \S 2: Grants for Source Derivative Works\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+12:20 - 12:30 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+12:30 - 14:00 & Lunch with Lecture "Patents and Free Software"\\
+& \textit{Prof. Eben Moglen}\\
+&\\
+14:00 - 14:20 & GPL, \S 3 Grants for Creating Binary Derivative Works\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+14:20 - 14:40 & The Implied Patent Grant in the GPL\\
+& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
+&\\
+14:40 - 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}\\
+&\\
+15:25 - 15:35 & GPL, \S 11: Disclaimer of Warranties\\
+& GPL, \S 12: Limitation of Liability\\
+& \textit{Daniel Ravicher}\\
+&\\
+15:35 - 15:45 & Q \& A\\
+&\\
+15:45 - 16:00 & Break\\
+&\\
+16:00 - 17:30 & GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)\\
+& \textit{Bradley M. Kuhn}\\
+&\\
+17:30 - 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
+0--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 Int’l., 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 program’s 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 Circuit’s 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
+2. 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
+2(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
+1991, 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
+3(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
+1445 (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
+4--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
+0--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
+3(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
+11 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
+12, 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
+12.
+
+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
+
+59 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
+1 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
+
+59 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}