Search Results

Search found 1034 results on 42 pages for 'legal'.

Page 5/42 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Is there a certain way that I have to include a library and it's license?

  - by leaf68

  I know this may be a dumb question, but I'm only 15 so I don't really know how the legal part of it works. When I choose a .dll to be included in my project, Visual Studio only includes the .dll file with my project (of course) so I just copy the license and stick it in a folder called licenses. But now, I'm going to be making a program for a contest so I need to make sure I have the licenses done right or I'll get disqualified. So is there any specific location I have to keep the licenses in my project, is there a way for Visual Studio to automatically copy the license the way it does with .dll files and is there anything else I have to watch out for legally? PS: If it matters the libraries I'm planning on using right now are WriteableBitmapEx and AvalonDock Thanks

  Read the article

• Limit website usage in court

  - by steveo225

  I run a few websites for a non-profit organization. Recently, our neighbor has been taking us to court and attempting to sue over everything he can. He made a comment to a supporter of ours that he wants the land and knows we won't sell, so he is trying to use his money to break us, and get the land for cheap. One of his latest tactics was to use excerpts from our website to take us to court about potential zoning violations for ideas we spit-balled on a forum with our supporters. I am trying to find a legal disclaimer that prevents somebody from using any information from our sites against us in court. Can this be done? If so, is there a default disclaimer on the web that would fit our needs? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to ensure that the domain name you are registering won't have licensing or trademark issues?

  - by pokemarine

  What are the conventions of domain registering? What domains and names someone can use as a brand/name for a website? How to determine if the name selected is available and there will be no legal issues later? Example.: A new website being developed, it needs a name, isn't it? So the team who is responsible for it decides, the name will be "WooLaCocaCola", means I should register the www.woolacocacola.com domain for the site. Let's say the domain is free to register, but that doesn't mean that the name as it is can be used, how can I check something like this?

  Read the article

• Are there Any Concerns with Importing Document Files From a Competing Product?

  - by Thunderforge

  I have a new product that serves the same purpose as my competitor's long-standing product. One thing I have considered doing is allowing my program to import document files created by their product in order to provide an easy way for users to migrate towards mine. Naturally, this would be done without the competitor's permission, as it goes against their interests. I've seen this done before with office suite software (e.g. Open Office and Apple Pages can import MS Word documents), but I'm wondering if there are any concerns, legal or ethical, with me doing this. I fully expect any answers will most likely fall under the "I am not a lawyer" clause, but it would be helpful to have a starting point for anything I would need to be aware of, or if I shouldn't need to worry.

  Read the article

• Is it okay to rollback code if your client refuses to pay you?

  - by JustinY

  A friend of mine did some contracting work to add localization support to an existing mobile app. He was not contracted to add any other features or fix any already existing bugs. He has finished his work, but the client refuses to pay him because of an already existing bug that he hasn't fixed. The only card my friend has left is to rollback the server code to the state it was before he began working, which will probably break the mobile app and hopefully force the client's hand. Is this legal? Is there a better way to handle the situation?

  Read the article

• GPL exception that allows linking to free licenses only?

  - by fNek

  There is the GPL license and the linking exception which allows closed-source programs to use the program as a library. There is also the slightly more restrictive LGPL (more restrictive than GPL with exception since it requires that the user can change the library in the resulting project, etc.). And there is the Cygwin exception that allows linking to open source programs. I see clear advantages: Open-Source programs may use the library. People may use these programs for closed-source programs, but then they lose the permission to use the (GPL) library. However, there are two things I don't like about the Cygwin exception: - Its legal status is disputed - I keep hearing that it is basically worthless - It requires certification by the OSI, I would rather have certification by FSF Is there an exception to the GNU General Public License that meets my requirements?

  Read the article

• Is it illegal to rewrite every line of an open source project in a slightly different way, and use it in a closed source project?

  - by Chris Barry

  There is some code which is GPL or LGPL that I am considering using for an iPhone project. If I took that code (JavaScript) and rewrote it in a different language for use on the iPhone would that be a legal issue? In theory the process that has happened is that I have gone through each line of the project, learnt what it is doing, and then reimplemented the ideas in a new language. To me it seems this is like learning how to implement something, but then reimplementing it separately from the original licence. Therefore you have only copied the algorithm, which arguably you could have learnt from somewhere else other than the original project. Does the licence cover the specific implementation or the algorithm as well? EDIT------ Really glad to see this topic create a good conversation. To give a bit more backing to the project, the code involved does some kind of audio analysis. I believe it is non-trivial to learn or implement, although I was prepared to embark on this task (I'm at the level where I can implement an FFT algorithm, and this was going to go beyond that.) It is a fairly low LOC script, so I didn't think it would be too hard to do a straight port. I really like the idea of rereleasing my port as well as using it in the application. I don't see any problem with that, and it would be a great way to give something back to the community. I was going to add a line about not wanting to discuss the moral issues, but I'm quite glad I didn't as it seems to have fired the debate a bit. I still feel a bit odd about using open source code to learn from. Does this mean that anything one learns from an open source project is not allowed to be used in a closed source project? And how long after or different does an implementation have to be to not be considered violation of the licence? Murky! EDIT 2 -------- Follow up question

  Read the article

• License Requirements for Including Dual-Licensed Open-Source Software

  - by Rick Roth

  How do you opt into one software license and not the other when the distributor gives the consumer more than one choice? For example I would like to use the DataTables JavaScript library in my web application. According to their web site, "DataTables is dual licensed under the GPL v2 license or a BSD (3-point) license." Furthermore, the source code of the JavaScript library has this text that calls out both licenses: /** * @summary DataTables * @description Paginate, search and sort HTML tables * @version 1.9.4 * @file jquery.dataTables.js * @author Allan Jardine (www.sprymedia.co.uk) * @contact www.sprymedia.co.uk/contact * * @copyright Copyright 2008-2012 Allan Jardine, all rights reserved. * * This source file is free software, under either the GPL v2 license or a * BSD style license, available at: * http://datatables.net/license_gpl2 * http://datatables.net/license_bsd * * This source file 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 license files for details. * * For details please refer to: http://www.datatables.net */ Finally, the web pages with the licensing text (e.g. the DataTables BSD license page) has this statement: "DataTables is made available under both the GPL v2 license and a BSD (3-point) style license. You can select which one you wish to use the DataTables code under." My specific question is "how do you select which one you want to use." In my case, I want to only use the BSD license and I want to make it explicitly clear that I do not opt into the GPL v2 license in any way. How do you do that and have it hold up to legal challenge?

  Read the article

• Is there a way to legally create a game mod?

  - by Rodrigo Guedes

  Some questions about it: If I create a funny version of a copyrighted game and sell it (crediting the original developers) would it be considered a parody or would I need to pay royalties? If I create a game mod for my own personal use would it be legal? What if I gave it for free to a friend? Is there a general rule about it or it depends on the developer will? P.S.: I'm not talking about cloning games like this question. It's all about a game clearly based on another. Something like "GTA Gotham City" ;) EDIT: This picture that I found over the internet illustrate what I'm talking about: Just in case I was not clear: I never created a mod game. I was just wondering if it would be legally possible before trying to do it. I'm not apologizing piracy. I pay dearly for my games (you guys have no idea how expensive games are in Brazil due to taxes). Once more I say that the question is not about cloning. Cloning is copy something and try to make your version look like a brand new product. Mods are intended to make reference to one or more of its source. I'm not sure if it can be done legally (if I knew I wasn't asking) but I'm sure this question is not a duplicate. Even so, I trust in the moderators and if they close my question I will not be offended - at least I had an opportunity to explain myself and got 1 good answer (by the time I write this, maybe some more will be given later).

  Read the article

• Pursuing violators of software license/copyright

  - by Dmitry Brant

  I've recently discovered a seller on eBay who is selling CDs with my (trialware) software on it. The seller is clearly trying to pass the software off as his own; he's copied all the verbiage from my software's website, except its actual name. This seller also sells a whole bunch of other CDs with free software for which he's misrepresenting authorship. For example, this listing contains screen shots that are obviously of the free program InfraRecorder. However, the name InfraRecorder or its authors aren't mentioned anywhere. Before I splurge on official legal assistance, does the community have any recommendations or past experiences with these kinds of matters? What's the best way to proceed, and at the very least, have the eBay listings taken down? Is it possible to reclaim the earnings from the sales of these CDs (not just for me, but for the other authors of the free software that this person is selling)? I realize that GPL'd software doesn't have any restrictions on "selling" the software, but this person has gone to great lengths to obfuscate the software's authorship, which is surely a violation of the license. (My software is not GPL; it's a custom license, and it does not permit redistribution of any kind without permission)

  Read the article

• GPL - what is distribution?

  - by Martin Beckett

  An interesting point came up on another thread about alleged misappropriation of a GPL project. In this case the enterprise software was used by some large companies who essentially took the code, changed the name, removed the GPL notices and used the result. The point was - if the company did this and only used the software internally then there isn't any distribution and that's perfectly legal under GPL. Modifications by their own employees for internal use would also be allowed. So At what point does it become a distribution? Presumably if they brought in outside contractors under 'work for hire' their modifications would also be internal and so not a distribution. If they hired an external software outfit to do modifications and those changes were only used internally by the company - would those changes be distributed? Does the GPL apply to the client or to the external developers? If the company then give the result to another department, another business unit, another company? What if the other company is a wholly owned subsidiary? ps. yes I know the answer is ask a lawyer. But all the discussion I have seen over GPL2/GPL3 distribution has been about webservices - not about internal use.

  Read the article

• What if you've been asked to develop a site and the client later introduces Ts&Cs that you'll breach whilst doing your job?

  - by Matt Lacey

  Disclaimer : this is all made up. Honest. And it represents no clients or employers living or dead, blah blah blah, etc. [Allegedly] As part of a website I've built, I've now been provided the Terms and Conditions of site usage to display on the site. These terms--which must be agreed to to access the site--include my (or any visitor to the sites) compliance with a number of clauses. Many of these clauses refer to general computer use and are not tied specifically to use of the site. Some of these clauses refer to things I have had to previously do as a legitimate part of my job and would expect to have to do again. When I've raised similar issues previously my line manager has said just to ignore it but that doesn't seem to be the professional thing to do. So, what do I do? Abiding by the terms would mean that I could no longer work on the project and would cause issues with my employer and the owner of the business the site is being created for. Ignoring them could lead to possible future issues with the business owner and is not something I'm necessarily happy with (the deliberate breaking of a legal contract). Neither option is one I'd choose and could have major consequences. Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• What is the "default" software license?

  - by Tesserex

  If I release some code and binaries, but I don't include any license at all with it, what are the legal terms that apply by default (in the US, where I am). I know that I automatically have copyright without doing anything, but what restrictions are there on it? If I upload my code to github and announce it as a free download / contribute at will, then are people allowed to modify and close source my work? I haven't said that they cannot, as a GPL would, but I don't feel that it would by default be acceptable to steal my work either. So what can and cannot people do with code that is freely available, but has absolutely no licensing terms attached? By the way, I know that it would be a good idea for me to pick a license and apply it to my code soon, but I'm still curious about this. Edit Thanks! So it looks like the consensus is that it starts out very restricted, and then my actions imply any further rights. If I just put software on my website with no security, it would be an infringement to download it. If I post a link to that download on a forum, then that would implicitly give permission to use it for free, but not distribute it or its derivatives (but you can modify it for your own use). If I put it on GitHub, then it is conveyed as FOSS. Again, this is probably not codified exactly in law but may be enough to be defensible in court. It's still a good idea to post a complete license to be safe.

  Read the article

• Employers and intellectual property 2

  - by Rick

  I have a question about intellectual property, I am currently a manager in a small manufacturing firm. The owners are driven by greed and don't appreciate the development process of complex machinery and are happy just to send things out half done. I on the other hand think that it should be done properly as breakdown in the field can be costly, embarrassing. They seem to have all of us running around doing most of the work out of hours using the attitude of "Be grateful to have a job" yet no one has a contract or any security or any agreement in place. For a couple of the projects i am using PLC's and doing the code in my own time and the testing during company time, and i am aware that they cannot support their own machines if i left, but as i created the code in my own time who owns it? The have asked my to put in a shutdown code for a maintenance request after a given length of time, could this be classed as criminal damage or anything illegal apart from immoral? (we sell the machines with 12 month warrantee, shut down after) But as time goes on I'm getting rather fed up of the companies attitude toward the client. I am considering keeping the clients as my own and get them to contact me directly In the shutdown code. By doing something like this is a trial version contact me for a full license? I wouldn't feel bad for my current employer as he is not afraid to S***t on people as he has been evolved in numerous law suits and has over 30 failed companies leaving people and customers high and dry, we have took the company this far on the reputation of the workers and and i can see things heading like all the other companies he has owned and taking our reputations with him. So i suppose now i have set the scene, if i code into it to contact me directly in the shutdown could there be any legal impact on me, as i rightly or wrongly think i own the code and designs? Cheers R

  Read the article

• What constitutes a programming language and how does one copyright a programming language?

  - by Yannbane

  I've decided to create a programming language of my own, mostly just for fun. However, I got interested in the legal aspect of it all. You can, for example, licence specific programs under specific terms. However, how do you go about licensing a language? Also, by that I don't just mean the implementation of the language (compiler & VM), but the standard itself. Is there something else to a programming language I'm missing? What I would like to achieve by such licensing: Make it completely FOSS (can a language even be FOSS, or is that the implementation that can be FOSS?) Establish myself as the author (can you legally be an author of a language? Or, again, just the implementation?) Make it so that anyone implementing my language would be required to attribute me (MIT-style. Please note that I do not have any hopes for anyone actually ever doing that though, I'm just learning.) I think that the solution would be to separately license the VM and the compiler for my language, as "the official implementation", and then license the design document as the language itself. What exactly am I missing here?

  Read the article

• If I send an IPA over TestFlight, can it be used to deploy to the app store?

  - by Reid Belton

  I am currently working for a small startup. I was previously under contract, now I am working for equity (no pay). The thing is, there is not yet a signed agreement in place as the details are being worked out. I may finish development before the contract is ready. I'm not currently under any contract or agreement, so the other party doesn't have any legal claim (that I know of) to the code I'm writing now, other than NDA (which just precludes me from cutting him out and releasing on my own). He already has the old code that I wrote under contract. I've made it clear to the other party that I won't submit the app or turn over the code until there's something signed to protect my interests. I've stopped pushing commits to the company repo (I'm now the only developer actively working on the project). However, I would still like to send builds over TestFlight for feedback and testing purposes. The other party has access to the developer portal and iTunes Connect for code signing, etc. Things are amicable and I don't foresee getting burnt on this, but I'm not going to put myself in that position. My concern is that if I send a finished build via TestFlight, it could be extracted and submitted to the app store without my participation. They wouldn't have the source for future maintenance and updates, of course, but it could be reverse-engineered by another developer later working from the old code base. Is this technically feasible at all? If so, is there a way I can send builds for testing while protecting my interests?

  Read the article

• What do I need to learn to decide on rename/recompile source package names because of company rebranding?

  - by Roberto Linares

  My company is currently at a rebranding process and the brand names have been used in the sources' package names but these names are only visible to developers who maintain this code so nobody from project management is really interested in changing them considering also that it would imply the recompiling of several old components. What factors do I need to consider when deciding on a change like that? I don't know if I should worry about legal issues or not and if so, how to address this with project management. More background details. I have all the sources and dependencies but since the company rebranding, other development areas have adopted some of the code that needs package name-changing so I cannot take the decision only by myself so I don't make everyone else's code to crash with my core components and I cannot change other areas' code without the permission of those areas' users so yes, my concern is more political than technical. I am going try to coordinate the involved it areas to make the change anyway, since it seems to be the best approach.   Unfortunatelly in my company there's no continuous integration build server so we build our code manually on demand and to get something to production I have to justify the change (even just the package name changing) to QA with an user requirement and some other bureaucratic documentation so that's why I was hesitating the change in first place.

  Read the article

• Applying for job: how to showcase work done for (private) past clients?

  - by user33445566

  I want to apply for my first "real" (read: non-freelance) Ruby on Rails job. I've built several apps already. My best work (also the most logically complicated app) was for a freelance client, and I'd like to show it to potential employers. Only problem is: it isn't online anymore. And I've lost touch with the client. How can I include this work in my portfolio? About the app: It's a Facebook game. The client's business idea for this app was not the best. It was never going to make any money. I think it was kind of a vanity side project for him. The logo and graphics are nice-looking, though, and were designed by the client. I've actually spent a lot of time recently recoding most of the app, and adding a full test suite. I want to showcase the BDD / TDD skills I've acquired. I'm not very familiar with the etiquette (/law?) concerning this situation. Can I just put my new version of the app up at a free Heroku URL (perhaps with a "credits" section, where I credit the ideas and graphic designs to my former client)? NOTE: Again, this is just to show potential employers. I am not trying to market the app as my idea, or attract any users. Can I put some or all of the code on GitHub? What if I don't put the code up publicly, but merely send a tarball to potential employers? Do I need to ask permission from my former client (and what if he says no)? The last thing I want to do is get in any legal trouble, or offend people I'm trying get a job from. But I believe that my work and experience on this app are my highest recommendation for getting a job.

  Read the article

• From release to business

  - by geneotech

  So let's say that I've finished programming a simple, indie MMO game similiar to Tibia. I've got a stable server application that is ready to launch, i've got a tested bug-free working client application that is ready to play and the game's official website (ready to host) with payment system and client that is ready to download for free. Let's say none of them break copyright laws, and no matter how impossible it sounds, let's for now say it's true. My game divides accounts into two groups - free and premium. If someone gets premium, he's granted access to all possible game features, that of course, need server authorisation to work properly. Let's say that the "premium account" can be bought on the website for a fixed money/month. Free accounts mean that everyone can actually play, but without paying, you get limited access. This is what the mentioned payment system will be for. Well, I'm completely novice to these business entities issues, so in short: what, in terms of law, are steps from here to the state where my game earns money in a fully legal way ? Also, is there for example, something like verification if game gives the user what it actually offers when paying on its website ? I live in Europe, if it changes something.

  Read the article

• Is Paypal In-App model for Android legal on Android Market?

  - by sunil

  Hi, As you all might be knowing that Paypal has launched an in-App purchase model for Anroid. I will like to know whether this is legally allowed in Android market or not. I know this may not be the best place to ask this but being developers if anyone has developed an application which uses Paypal In-App and is on Android Market then it would be a great help. Regards Sunil

  Read the article

• Will I have legal issues if I attach this 'free' font using @font-face?

  - by janoChen

  *(I'm not sure if StackOverflow is the best place to ask this. But previously, I asked a similar question and it was well received).* I just found this awesome free font (Aller). It is free but it has the following written in the license file: Use by more than 25 Users, or equivalent Website Visitors, is a breach of this Free Licence Agreement, and instead requires a commercial licence. This is what I understand: If it is used in a company with more than 25 employees then it requires commercial license? If the website gets more than 25 visits per month it requires commercial license? Not sure if I got it wrong, but it doesn't make too much sense to me (specially the second statement. I want to use it in my personal portfolio were I provide web design services. Do I need a commercial license?

  Read the article

• Legal question.

  - by Kjow

  Hi all, a question bounces in my head from some time. Copyright laws are different by nation to nation, but generally which is the border line to break a copyright? Suppose to make a game that is very similar to an other come out in the past, e.g. a Pacman clone or a Space Invaders clone, but nothing from original titles are grabbed and maybe they're not made in 2d, but in 3d. The titles aren't "Pacman clone - the return" or "Space Invaders - they did it again", and not also "Pocman" or "Space Evaders" (maybe this last could be fun for some "creative financers" that need to escape from earth :D). Finally suppose to call these some thing like "Popcorn, fruit and ghosts" (or the acronym: "PFG") and "Kill all enemy" (or the acronym: "KAE"). In this case (not grab- all self-made) and no references to original titles, but with a game that feels very similar to "ispiration ones"... they could be sold to somewhere like "Valve's Steam"? Regards, Kjow

  Read the article

• GPL vs plugin interfaces not designed with a specific application in mind

  - by Kristóf Marussy

  I am not seeking or in need of legal advice, but an interesting though experiment came to my mind. Imagine the following situtation (I cannot really think about a concrete example and I am unsure if a real manifestation even exists): there is a free (libre) api A licensed under some permissive license or even LGPL. Non-free application B implements this api in order host plugins, but there are other free software doing the same thing. Moreover, there is plugin C acting as a plugin under api A. It links to library D, that is under GPL, so C is also under GPL. Plugins using A are loaded into hosts via a dlopen-like mechanism and use complex data structure for host-plugin communication. Neither B nor C distribute any files that may be required for A to function properly (like headers containing the structure definitions of A or dynamic libraries containing helper functions for A written by the authors of A), but such things may exist. Now some user installs application B and plugin C on his machine, along with anything that may be required for api A to function properly. Then he proceeds and loads C into B and creates some intellectual property with B which is not a piece of software. Did a GPL violation happend at some point, and if so, who violated GPL and why? The authors of C violate D's license by making C possible to be used in non-free host B? This is a possibility because they can't give and exception of GPL (like one described in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF or http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface) due to D's license terms. The authors of B violate C's and D's license by making C possible to be loaded in B? This is a possibility because http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NFUseGPLPlugins disallows the mechanisms A uses for communitation between the free and non-free modules. The authors of A, because the api may be used (and in this case, was used) for communication between GPL'd and non-free software. This would be extremely absurd. The user, because at the moment of loading B into C, he made a derived work of C. I think this is impossible, because he does not distribute it. But would the situation change is he decided to release a configuration file of B which makes B load C as a plugin? Nobody, because A counts as a 'system library', and both B and C directly interact only with A, not eachother. In a sane world, this would happen... A concrete example of A could be some kind of audio (think LADSPA) or image processing api. However, I could find no such interface (that is free software, generic and is also implemented by commercial tools). A real-world example could also be quite enlightening.

  Read the article

• Domains with similar names and legal issues

  - by abel

  I recently purchased one of those domain names like del.icio.us. While registering I found that delicious.com was being used. Argument: I found that delicious.com belonged to the same category as my to-be website. It served premium delicious dishes. Counter Argument: My to-be domain though belonging to the same category, specialized in serving free but delicious dishes or in giving out links(affiliate) to other sites serving premium delicious dishes. Additional Counter Arguments: 1.delicious.com was not in English. 2.the del.icio.us in my domain name though having the same spelling, is not going to be used in the same fashion. For eg.(this may not make sense, because the names have been changed)the d in delicious on my website actually stands for the greek letter Delta(?/d) and since internationalized domains are still not easily typable, I am going for the english equivalent.The prefix holds importance for the theme of the service which my website intends to offer. My Question: Can I use the domain name del.icio.us for my website? How are these kinds of matters dealt? (The domain names used are fictitious. And I have already registered the domain but have not started using it.I chanced upon this domain name because it was short, easy to remember and suited the theme of my website.)

  Read the article

• Rights and use of developed software

  - by Nils Munch

  I have been working on a piece of software for a company, that they wish to resell. There was an mail-based agreement upon a flat hourly rate for my work, and eager me chose to accept a rather low fee. Due to the stress and tempo of the task, a direct contract was never formed or signed. The software was developed locally on my machine, and I was pretty much alone with it, except by excellent help from StackOverflow when I got stuck. Now, the software is nearing completion, I suddenly hear that they have hired a new developer to make the same piece of software as me, and that I was expected to resign within long. Confused I ask around, and realize that the CEO of the company had informed the rest of the company that I was terminally ill and had cancer, and was expected to leave the company soon. Since I'm perfectly healthy, this confused me even more, until I realized what was going on. When I confronted my boss with this, I was no longer seen as a member of the company, and I left the same day, never to return. Later, I raised the question about my missing pay, since I had been working for quite a bit, and not received any payment for my software. I saw that they had already sold a fair copy of my software, and since it's not exactly sold cheap, the company should have plenty of gold to pay me. The company refused, and said that they owned the software, and everything it contained. That was a lot of drama, but my question is this: Who has the rights to the software ? The source code had my personal watermarks and copyrights inprinted, but they have since simply deleted it. The company claim that they have all the rights, because they have a website made about the product, where they write that they have "All rights reserved" in the bottom. My instinct tells me that if a company buys a service like this, and then refuses to pay their developer, then they should not be allowed to keep, and much less resell the product. I have not signed any agreements about giving the company the use of this product, I have made it in my own time and without help from the rest of the company. This all takes place in Denmark, Europe, but I would guess that the rules about this is somewhat universal. Im not the strongest person to legal-talk, so I might be wrong.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >