01.10.12
Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard at 11:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Leaked documents from the UK reveal the role Microsoft played in derailing standards in the United Kingdom
THE thugs from Microsoft are waging imperialist wars again. They do this via mercenaries of sorts — front groups that pretend to be “local”.
“So MS got the UK Cabinet office to use a broken definition of Open Standard,” says iophk. “Strange that the office was so malleable.”
Herein we see standards getting replaced by Microsoft “interop” nonsense, just like Novell-type deals with their new propaganda. The sheer abuses (including bribery) Microsoft used for OOXML were covered here closely. Rather than recall them now we’ll just say with conviction that Microsoft is a criminal company, as evidenced around 2007 and 2008 when Microsoft attacked international standards bodies, many professionals (those whom Microsoft did not manage to bribe), etc.
“MS has been pushing RAND for more than a few years now,” iophk explains. As we showed in prior years, Microsoft is using the BSA and other front groups to achieve this.
Here too we have a new report which shows what Microsoft has just done (based on a leak):
The British government withdrew its open standards policy after lobbying from Microsoft, it has been revealed in a Cabinet Office brief leaked to Computer Weekly.
The Department of Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) also formerly opposed the policy before Cabinet Office withdrew it. BIS supported Microsoft’s position against open standards, the backbone of the government’s ICT policy. The Business Software Alliance, infamous for its lobbying against open standards policy in Brussels, also lobbied against the government policy.
Microsoft took up direct opposition to the ICT Strategy’s pledge to give preference to technologies that supported open standards of interoperability between government computer systems, said the briefing paper.
The software supplier was concerned this would prevent companies from claiming royalties on the point of exchange between those systems.
It complained specifically about the wording of UK procurement policy, which in January 2011 established a definition to explain its edict that open standards should be used in government computing wherever possible. UK policy specified that “[open standards] must have intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis”.
Microsoft said it supported the aims of UK open standards policy – specifically that government systems should be interoperable, that it should be possible for government to re-use purchased software components, and that government should not be “locked-in” to using particular technologies.
[...]
Microsoft refused to talk to Computer Weekly about its consultation with the Cabinet Office.
It said in a written statement: “Microsoft fully supports the Government’s ICT strategy and its goals of reducing cost and complexity, and increasing information sharing, interoperability, openness and re-use.”
The BSA said in a written statement it also supported government’s policy aims.
“However,” it said, “reducing public procurement expenses in the UK does not require the adoption of a policy which undermines the value of Intellectual Property and Innovation.”
Cabinet Office said in a written statement: “No lobbying has taken place that has affected our approach in creating an Open Standards definition that works for government.”
BIS also refused to discuss its differences with Cabinet Office. It said in a written statement: “Discussions are still ongoing between the departments with many options being considered.”
Glyn Moody was filled with fury over this. He wrote:
Although I am not surprised by this revelation, I remain incredibly angry about it – and I think everyone who cares about computing in this country should be too. It confirms that the UK government’s fine words about supporting open source and open standard are truly the typical and cynical political sweet-talking before you are stabbed in the back at the behest of lobbyists that wield so much power. No one should take anything the UK government says in this context seriously again.
What’s truly shocking about this episode is not that Microsoft has once again interfered with a sovereign nation’s decision to create a level playing-field – that’s just par for the course for the convicted monopolist. What’s really disgusting is that UK government has let them. This is a total scandal: anyone involved with this pathetic kowtowing to US business interests with any sense of decency would resign immediately. And those that don’t should be fired.
Free Software Magazine wrote, “look who’s behind it?”
It is at times like this I recall the Free Software Foundation’s opposition to the use of the term Open Source. Just as with “Open Standard” it is way to open to interpretation.
So once again the UK Government falls behind the pack in terms of freedom, transparency and accessibility for its citizens. This is not a party-political thing by the way – it’s a politician thing. In the UK there has been a backlash lately over the influence that the media (in particular the print media “barons”) has over government policy. Isn’t it about time the same spotlight was cast upon the influence that big business (many of them not British) have over government policy as well?
I find it saddening, disheartening and somewhat ironic that the one part of the software industry that is continuing to provide real innovation and progress is being locked out of Whitehall because of lobbying by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills!
Microsoft’s role in these situation is easy to see, even when Microsoft hides behind front groups. Over in a smaller country we find news about another FOSS-hostile government position:
A state which has been popular for using FOSS has now entered in a conditional pact where they ‘willingly’ chose to spend money on proprietary software despite the availability of free and open source alternatives.
Bribes come from proprietary software and overpriced goods. It should not be surprising that politicians turn their back on Free/Open Source software. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.01.11
Posted in IBM, OpenDocument, OpenOffice, Standard at 11:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo by Dan Farber
Summary: OpenOffice.org is moving to Apache, which helps IBM after a short moment of uncertainty and doubt
PR blunders aside (IBM PR telling me, “if you blog about the end of this case, none of this information came from IBM, okay? Cheers…”), it has just been announced that, as SJVN told us all last night, OpenOffice.org is going to Apache and the IBM folks are quick to issue remarks about it, led by Brill, Weir, and Sutor. Weir says that:
Oracle has followed through with their earlier promise to “move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project.” OpenOffice is moving to Apache.
Prior to that Weir also said: “Disappointing to see so-called open source proponents desperately trying to squash an open source project. It must be Tuesday.” It is not clear if he was referring to the petition to Oracle. Perhaps he should clarify his statements, e.g. with a link.
Remember how IBM reacted after Oracle had sued Google. The issues of patents will be discussed here later. IBM almost bought Sun.
Sutor writes:
It’s been an interesting road to get to this point over the decades, with well and not-so-well publicized twists and turns, but I’m glad we got here.
We’ll have more about this shortly, hopefully something unique (although the Internet will be flooded by pundits). Let us remember that OpenOffice.org is Free software and so is LibreOffice. There is a lot to be said now which probably will be said by every FOSS/Linux site.
In defence of IBM, the company is bigger than Microsoft, but it is not fundamentally against Free software. Scale is not the problem (SCO, for example, was always quite small). Prepare for a lot of FUD from the Microsoft camp, which harbours the #1 cash cow. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.24.11
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 2:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Note: written this morning (i.e. before the hearing)]
Summary: The lawyers/lobbyingmeisters come out in defence of Microsoft almost unsurprisingly, coinciding of course with a very important hearing about Microsoft’s abuses
THE FSFE says that it will speak to the European Court of Justice regarding Microsoft. From their new page:
Fresh action in the European Commission’s antitrust proceedings against Microsoft: On May 24, the European Court of Justice conducts a hearing on Microsoft’s appeal against the fine. FSFE has participated in the case for a decade and will intervene on the Commission’s behalf.
Carlo Piana will be there too and he announces this in Identi.ca/Twitter while “Microsoft tries to weasel out of big EU fine,” as one reader of ours put it. “This would be in connection with Microsoft’s action claiming that the 899 million euro fine the EU Commission ordered in 2008 was excessive,” explains Groklaw. “The Commission found that, prior to October of 2007 Microsoft charged unreasonable prices for access to indispensable interoperability information.” Here is what Piana wrote:
Ready to fly to Luxembourg. #FSFE and #samba in court for setting the record straight on #interoperability.
There is some funny stuff going on right now. The "interoperability" propaganda (with patents and RAND, not free standards) gets pushed by some mysterious groups and lobbyists whom we never saw before. “Glyn Moody questions a curious Guardian article about standards and discovers an insulting Microsoft think tank,” claims a reader of ours, pointing at this article. We are not sure if it’s Microsoft behind the spin, but it is rather predictable that Microsoft at least played a role (Microsoft is generally funding think tanks to lie). As Moody shows, the messenger has a very dodgy reputation. He writes: “Let’s see what else concerns the ITSSD. How about this?”
U.S. Navy Had a Whale of a Job Fending Off Green Lawfare in NRDC v. Winter Case
In a newly released Washington Legal Foundation working paper, international lawyer Lawrence Kogan describes the U.S. Navy’s challenge in convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate a green injunction effectively preventing critical U.S. Naval sonar training exercises from taking place off the Southern California coast. The injunction had been issued on the grounds that the Navy’s failure to prepare a full environmental impact statement could trigger possible but scientifically unverifiable discomfort to beaked whales.
“The green group and California State pleadings the Supreme Court reviewed in Winter provide a bird’s eye view of continuing activist efforts to rewrite U.S. environmental regulatory law from the bench in pacifist Europe’s socialist image,” emphasizes Kogan.”
You see, it’s getting worse: those “pacifist” “socialist” Europeans are trying to protect the whales from pain – whatever next?
Well, how about this [.pdf]?
Congress Should Do its ‘Homework’ Before Adopting Costly Euro-Style Energy/Climate Change Rules
Crafted by unelected bureaucrats, environmental activists and socialist party ‘kingpins’ and supported by most European leaders, such policies have focused more on promoting sustainable development via consumer and business sacrifices than on securing desperately-needed regional energy supplies.
Yes, it’s those crafty socialist party ‘kingpins’ again – probably all cheese-eating surrender monkeys – aided and abetted by environmental activists, who have the audacity to promote “sustainable development via consumer and business sacrifices”: can you imagine it?
Yes, I think lots of caution is required here….
Did Microsoft liaise with ITSSD? Here it is lobbying for Microsoft interests at WIPO [PDF]. They even have a blogspot blog, just like Microsoft Florian. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.02.11
Posted in Fraud, Microsoft, Open XML, Standard at 4:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“The Norwegian [OOXML] affair was a scandal and we are still pursuing it. We haven’t given up hope of changing the vote back to No, and we hope people who experienced similar travesties in other countries will do the same.”
–Steve Pepper (just days ago)
Summary: The OOXML scandals return to the press, reminding people that corruption is still at the heart of Microsoft Corporation
RARELY do we find journalists with guts these days, but Mark Ballard has been the exception for quite a few years and by addressing Microsoft's "fuckwittery" he helps bring to light again a lot of the corruption surrounding OOXML — a systematic abuse of massive scale which the press almost forgot about. Based on one who seems to have conspired with Microsoft, standards just don’t matter and here is what Ballard has to say about that:
A senior member of a leading British tech standards body has launched an excoriating attack on Cabinet Office efforts to implement the central plank of its ICT Strategy.
The outburst has opened a crack into the secretive world of formal tech standards, suggesting it may be convulsed in a fit of pique not seen since Microsoft got its derided OOXML document format passed by standards bodies around the world in 2008.
Alex Brown, British Standards Institute committee member infamous for overseeing OOXML’s approval, said in his personal blog how he had become exasperated with government efforts to bring ICT standards in line with its policy of easy interoperability of public computer systems.
[...]
The failure and, it was alleged at the time, susceptibility of that process to corruption may have been demonstrated by the OOXML affair.
The alleged corruption was never confirmed, to this correspondent’s knowledge. But it has for more substantial reasons left the process with a stigmata that goes right to the heart of government policy.
The culture of transparency that has swept along in the wake of Sir Tim Berners Lee’s open data initiative has in addition made the BSI look anachronistic.
We wrote about the BSI in posts such as:
The good thing about OOXML is, it helped show that Microsoft never changed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.24.11
Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard at 7:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win.”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
Summary: A key participator in the OOXML fiasco mocks an attempt to establish real standards
MICROSOFT zealots are quite the bunch. Those zealots love to characterise freedom lovers as what they themselves are, carefully using stereotypes to portray appreciators of rights, standards and transparency as the “bad guys”. We saw many examples of that last week in ZDNet and days ago we got a reminder when we saw Microsoft's "fox" speaking utter rubbish again. Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] wants to be seen as a professional, but he keeps dodging the questions that matter. Moreover, rather than apologise for helping a corrupt process be corrupt (knowing all sorts of things which turned out to be true later, including patent traps), he carries on moaning and playing dumb. What does it say about him? With UK acceptance of ODF he must be rather bitter. After all, his reputation was burned like an effigy after all he had sacrificed everything for his beloved OOXML. Strong language is all he can descend to now, writing phrases like: “Faced with such clueless fuckwittery it’s tempting simply to ask: what’s the point?” The context is “UK Open Standards”.
Andy Updegrove has responded to this one:
Presumably, being involved in standards activities that are highly relevant to the consulting and implementation business of Alex’s firm, Griffin Brown, has no impact on its fortunes at all. And engaging in some other type of community service – say, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or becoming a Boy Scout leader – would avoid all that tedious travel to the excessively dreary locations where SC 34 (the format standard working group) insists on holding its meetings. Places like Tokyo, Stockholm, Paris, Copenhagen, and Prague.
[...]
The problem, it appears, is that Alex thinks that only those that participate in working groups like SC 34 are competent to judge what should be in a standard, or which among competing standards might be superior. Never mind, of course, that legions of formal standards have never been widely adopted at all, or that consortium standards are frequently adopted over formal standards. But forget that. Those who aren’t inside the formal standards process just don’t get what standards are really and truly all about, so why don’t all you ignorant sods just bugger off?
If the name Alex Brown rings a bell, don’t be surprised. Alex was the convenor of the one week OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting held in 2008 – you know, the one that thought that a one week meeting was an intelligent way to resolve over 1,000 comments on an over 6,000 page specification in order to formalize an open standard. During that meeting, Alex made multiple decisions that were later condemned by many. Four countries filed formal appeals. Alex remains serene about that meeting, the decisions made, and the outcome.
Standards, you see, are not to be questioned by those that are expected to use them. They are to be accepted with the deference to which their developers are entitled. We, who are increasingly utterly dependent on what standards allow us to do, or not do, are never, ever to question the judgment of those that create these precious gifts.
Our role is to take what we’re given, and do what we’re told. Anything else would be “clueless fuckwittery.”
My God, Alex. Where is there an end of it?
“Do take a look,” remarks Groklaw, “and if you are in the UK, you might let the government know what standards are important to you. If you are not one for surveys, it says you can alternatively email cto at cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.13.11
Posted in Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 3:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: El grupo de cabeza de Microsoft, la nefasta Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA, se apoya en el gobierno británico para revertir las políticas que favorecen la libertad del software a través de estándares abiertos.
LA BSA[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Business_Software_Alliance] ataca de nuevo. Mark Taylor escribe: “Al parecer, la BSA han comenzado a quejarse de la nueva política de la Oficina del Gabinete en estándares abiertos … ahora hay una gran sorpresa” (no!).
Bueno, él escribió en Twitter de todos modos (la revelación: Yo trabajo para Sirius, su compañía). Glyn Moody encontrado este artículo de acompañamiento[http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2011/03/01/bsa-open-standards-will-increase-e-government-costs-40091981/] sobre este tema, señalando: “gran bofetada de FUD (Miedo Incertidumbre y Duda) de la irreflexiva BSA” (y por debajo de algunas citas de expansión para futuras referencias).
A los departamentos gubernamentales se les dijo en una nota de la política de la Oficina del Gabinete (PDF) con fecha 31 de enero que “debe siempre que sea posible implementar los estándares abiertos en las especificaciones de sus contratos”. En su nota, que define los estándares abiertos en los que están “a disposición del público en cero o de bajo costo” y que “han hecho de manera irrevocable la propiedad intelectual disponible en una base sin derechos de autor”.
El martes, la Business Software Alliance (BSA) arremetió contra la política, que pone a las empresas de software con normas propietarias en desventaja.
[...]
Sin embargo, los defensores del código abierto, tales como la Free Software Foundation Europa (FSFE) se quejaron de que el EIFv2, en comparación con la primera versión, mostró que la Comisión había abandonado la idea de ordenar los estándares abiertos como un “elemento clave para la interoperabilidad”.
Mark Taylor, director ejecutivo de los sistemas de código abierto Sirio integración empresa, dijo que la respuesta de la BSA a la nota política del gobierno era “basura” y “absolutamente previsible”.
“Una gran cantidad de tiempo y esfuerzo dedicado por los intereses particulares de grupos de presión en Bruselas,” dijo Taylor a ZDNet Reino Unido. “EIFv2 fue definitivamente un paso atrás en EIFv1″.
La BSA dice que la EIFv2 creado una “igualdad de condiciones” para todos los tipos de software, incluidos los de código abierto, para competir en la prestación del sector público con las soluciones interoperables. Según Taylor, esta declaración es “no es verdad” y la nueva recomendación europea es “discriminatoria en contra de código abierto”.
“Afortunadamente, el gobierno del Reino Unido es uno de los gobiernos que habían identificado eso”, dijo Taylor. “Si EIFv2 no había sido un paso atrás, no habría necesidad de que gobiernos como el gobierno del Reino Unido a salir con estas políticas.”
Über-abogado Carlo Piana comillas: “BSA apoya los estándares abiertos, si estamos de acuerdo en lo” abierto “significa …”
En respuesta, escribe Piana, “por ejemplo, h.264 sí, WebM ¿no? es decir, una farsa!”
La BSA es tratar de caracterizar lo propietario y el monopolio como “abierto” y “elección”. Es la misma que mentira Microsoft utiliza continuamente. █
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.04.11
Posted in Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 10:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The perils of cartels orbiting around multimedia formats are recognised by the federal government and an IBM senior slams the BSA
The MPEG cartel is a subject we wrote about extensively, especially last year, e.g. in:
According to Murdoch’s press, there is federal action against this cartel, which also includes Microsoft and Apple. An “interesting development” British journalist Glyn Moody calls it and his colleague says that the “US Justice Department [is] reportedly investigating MPEG LA over VP8 threats”:
The US Justice Department is reportedly studying whether attempts by owners of the H.264 video patent pool to find out whether Google’s free and open-source VP8 codec infringes their patents are unfair.
It has opened an antitrust probe to find out whether the MPEG LA group or its members are trying to stifle the alternative format, which Google is pushing as a cost-free alternative for video on the web, according to the Wall Street Journal.
As a reminder, the BSA too is currently lobbying in favour of the likes of MPEG-LA in the UK [1, 2] and IBM’s Rob Weir says he’s proud IBM is not associated with the BSA (it was dumped by IBM recently). To quote Weir:
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is at it again. They are claiming that new UK Cabinet Office policy in favor of open standards — the kind of standards that the web is built on and which has created billions in new economy jobs – is actually a bad thing, since it would (according to the BSA), “reduce choice, hinder innovation and increase the costs of e-government”.
Really? Are they serious?
Those with a penchant for the history of economic thought may recall the 19th century French liberal economist Claude Frédéric Bastiat, and his satirical economic parables, which attacked prevalent economic errors of his time. We have need of Bastiat at this hour, especially his skewering of an entrenched industry’s rent-seeking tendency to push for government protection from lower cost competitors. His attack on protectionism was called “The Candlemaker’s Petition“…
See the rest of the details in Weir’s blog. It’s like OOXML all over again (with Candlemaker rather than broken windows, bridges, or light bulbs this time around). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 2:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Los peligros de los cárteles que orbitan alrededor de los formatos multimedia son reconocidos por el gobierno federal y un ejecutivo de alto nivel de IBM critica a la Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA
El cartel de MPEG es un tema sobre el que hemos escrito ampliamente, especialmente el año pasado, por ejemplo, en:
* Canonical tiene que indicar a los usuarios de Ubuntu cuánto pagó MPEG-LA para su “protección” de Patentes[http://techrights.org/2010/05/07/canonical-disclosure-h264-video/]
* Microsoft y MPEG LA-Se llama “trolls de patentes”, denuncia antimonopolio presentadas[http://techrights.org/2010/05/26/mpeg-cartel-and-microsoft-backlash/]
* Troll Patentes (MPEG-LA) puede ser el dueño de su propio Personal y Videos de Familia[http://techrights.org/2010/05/26/patent-trolls-exploit-cams/]
* Alexandre Oliva explica por qué la patente Troll Larry Horn (Cartel MPEG) es una pantalla[http://techrights.org/2010/05/27/mpeg-cartel-bluff/]
* “Estamos en la era del vídeo digital, y es un lío,”-Steve Jobs, MPEG-LA Autor/cabildero de su propuesta[http://techrights.org/2010/05/28/mpeg-cartel-gives-jobs/]
* Simon Phipps: “MPEG-LA es un parásito que los institutos de normalización tienen como su huésped, ya sea que lo quieran o no.” (Y una perorata sobre Banshee/Mono)[http://techrights.org/2010/06/07/mpeg-la-and-dot-net-trap/]
Según la prensa de Murdoch[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703752404576178833590548792.html], hay acción federal en contra de este cartel, que también incluye a Microsoft y Apple. Una “evolución interesante” lo define el periodista británico Glyn Moody y su colega dicen que el “Departamento de Justicia de los EE.UU. este investivgando las amenazas de MPEG LA contra VP8″[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/mar/04/justice-department-antitrust-mpeg-la-vp8]:
El . Departamento de Justicia de los EE.UU. está estudiando si los informes, los intentos de los propietarios de la junta de patentes de vídeo H.264 para determinar si el libre y de código abierto de Google códec VP8 infringe sus patentes son injustas.
Se ha abierto una investigación antimonopolio para averiguar si el grupo MPEG LA y sus miembros están tratando de sofocar el formato alternativo, que Google está empujando como una alternativa gratuita para el vídeo en la web, de acuerdo con el Wall Street Journal.
Como recordatorio, la Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA también está presionando en favor de chacales como la MPEG-LA en el del Reino Unido [1[http://techrights.org/2011/03/02/bsa-tries-to-exclude-freedom/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/03/03/lies-machine-vs-foss-policy/]] y Rob Weir de IBM dice que está orgulloso de IBM no está asociada con la BSA[http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/03/bsa-new-candlemakers.html] (fue objeto de dumping por parte de IBM hace poco[http://techrights.org/2011/01/14/bsa-loses-key-members/]). Para citar Weir:
La Alianza Empresarial de Software (BSA) esta en él otra vez. Ellos están reclamando acerca la nueva política de la Oficina de Gabinete del Reino Unido en favor de los estándares abiertos – la clase de normas que la web se basa en, y que ha creado miles de millones de puestos de trabajo nueva economía – es realmente una mala cosa, ya que (de acuerdo con la BSA) , “reducir la elección, obstaculizar la innovación y el aumento de los costos de la administración electrónica”.
¿En serio? ¿Son serios?
Los que tienen una inclinación por la historia del pensamiento económico puede recordar el 19 º siglo economista liberal francés Claude Frédéric Bastiat, y sus parábolas satíricas en económía, que atacaron frecuentes errores económicos de su tiempo. Tenemos necesidad de Bastiat a esta hora, en especial su ensartar de la tendencia de captación de rentas de una industria arraigada a impulsar la protección del gobierno en contra de los competidores de menor costo. Su ataque contra el proteccionismo que se llamó “La Petición del Candlemaker” …
Vea el resto de los detalles en el blog de Weir. Es como OOXML de nuevo (con Candlemaker en lugar de ventanas rotas, puentes, o las bombillas en esta ocasión). █
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
