Releasing Patch File for BSD3 Licensed ProjectIs ripping off an open source library okay?Can I take BSD licensed code and distribute it under GPL?Copying a file from an open source projectDerived work of BSD licensed software, how do I indicate this?Using FreeBSD licensed code in a GPL3+ projectDo packages listed in a package.json file need to be documented individually?Valid locations for propagated MIT/BSD licenses?BSD 3-Clause: where to place license for binary installation?A small Go library under GPLv2, rewrite it under modified BSDI'm creating a code generator that uses BSD licensed code as a reference. How do I give proper attribution to the referenced code?Why does the clause 3 of 4-clause BSD makes it incompatible with GPL?
Is GOCE a satellite or aircraft?
Why do TACANs not have a symbol for compulsory reporting?
Help, my Death Star suffers from Kessler syndrome!
Why does processed meat contain preservatives, while canned fish needs not?
Will a top journal at least read my introduction?
Please, smoke with good manners
Pawn Sacrifice Justification
How does a Swashbuckler rogue "fight with two weapons while safely darting away"?
Why didn't this hurt this character as badly?
TikZ how to make supply and demand arrows for nodes?
Is creating your own "experiment" considered cheating during a physics exam?
How to set the font color of quantity objects (Version 11.3 vs version 12)?
Single Colour Mastermind Problem
Options leqno, reqno for documentclass or exist another option?
Confusion about capacitors
Can I get candy for a Pokemon I haven't caught yet?
How to stop co-workers from teasing me because I know Russian?
Why was Germany not as successful as other Europeans in establishing overseas colonies?
Minimum value of 4 digit number divided by sum of its digits
Does a creature that is immune to a condition still make a saving throw?
Why does Bran Stark feel that Jon Snow "needs to know" about his lineage?
Subtleties of choosing the sequence of tenses in Russian
In gnome-terminal only 2 out of 3 zoom keys work
Can a creature tell when it has been affected by a Divination wizard's Portent?
Releasing Patch File for BSD3 Licensed Project
Is ripping off an open source library okay?Can I take BSD licensed code and distribute it under GPL?Copying a file from an open source projectDerived work of BSD licensed software, how do I indicate this?Using FreeBSD licensed code in a GPL3+ projectDo packages listed in a package.json file need to be documented individually?Valid locations for propagated MIT/BSD licenses?BSD 3-Clause: where to place license for binary installation?A small Go library under GPLv2, rewrite it under modified BSDI'm creating a code generator that uses BSD licensed code as a reference. How do I give proper attribution to the referenced code?Why does the clause 3 of 4-clause BSD makes it incompatible with GPL?
There is a simple project licensed under BSD3 that provides a CMake module. The project has a CMake build system that builds an example document by including the provided module. The CMake module has the BSD3 license and copyright included within it, which I assume applies to the entire project, not just that file.
To mesh this project with my own, I have modified the build system. I have captured these changes in a patch file. While the project containing the patch doesn't include the original project, it does contain a few lines of code from the build system inside that patch file as context for my changes.
Since I am relatively new to working with open source licenses, I am wondering what is the appropriate way to mark the project to ensure the terms of the original license are fulfilled. I know I need to include the original copyright, license, and disclaimer, and I would like to release my own code/changes under an equally permissive license (BSD2, BSD3, or MIT), but I am unsure how to differentiate what parts are covered by which license.
bsd
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
add a comment |
There is a simple project licensed under BSD3 that provides a CMake module. The project has a CMake build system that builds an example document by including the provided module. The CMake module has the BSD3 license and copyright included within it, which I assume applies to the entire project, not just that file.
To mesh this project with my own, I have modified the build system. I have captured these changes in a patch file. While the project containing the patch doesn't include the original project, it does contain a few lines of code from the build system inside that patch file as context for my changes.
Since I am relatively new to working with open source licenses, I am wondering what is the appropriate way to mark the project to ensure the terms of the original license are fulfilled. I know I need to include the original copyright, license, and disclaimer, and I would like to release my own code/changes under an equally permissive license (BSD2, BSD3, or MIT), but I am unsure how to differentiate what parts are covered by which license.
bsd
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
add a comment |
There is a simple project licensed under BSD3 that provides a CMake module. The project has a CMake build system that builds an example document by including the provided module. The CMake module has the BSD3 license and copyright included within it, which I assume applies to the entire project, not just that file.
To mesh this project with my own, I have modified the build system. I have captured these changes in a patch file. While the project containing the patch doesn't include the original project, it does contain a few lines of code from the build system inside that patch file as context for my changes.
Since I am relatively new to working with open source licenses, I am wondering what is the appropriate way to mark the project to ensure the terms of the original license are fulfilled. I know I need to include the original copyright, license, and disclaimer, and I would like to release my own code/changes under an equally permissive license (BSD2, BSD3, or MIT), but I am unsure how to differentiate what parts are covered by which license.
bsd
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
There is a simple project licensed under BSD3 that provides a CMake module. The project has a CMake build system that builds an example document by including the provided module. The CMake module has the BSD3 license and copyright included within it, which I assume applies to the entire project, not just that file.
To mesh this project with my own, I have modified the build system. I have captured these changes in a patch file. While the project containing the patch doesn't include the original project, it does contain a few lines of code from the build system inside that patch file as context for my changes.
Since I am relatively new to working with open source licenses, I am wondering what is the appropriate way to mark the project to ensure the terms of the original license are fulfilled. I know I need to include the original copyright, license, and disclaimer, and I would like to release my own code/changes under an equally permissive license (BSD2, BSD3, or MIT), but I am unsure how to differentiate what parts are covered by which license.
bsd
bsd
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
asked Apr 21 at 14:18
Godric SeerGodric Seer
1234
1234
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
There are few ways to solve your problem. In order to be legally safest I would find those few lines from the original project, mark them with comments /* Name of the original copyright holder + BSD3 */, and then would include the original license along side with your own. Since you are going to release your own project as open source, then those lines might get erased in the future. When that happens with all those lines, then you can scrap the old license.
If you want to avoid this situation with your own project and mark each line written by a contributor then it would be necessary to sign CLA's with your contributors.
Good luck!
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
Perfect, so a license file that is essentially: "My copyright, BSD-3, Original Copyright, BSD-3" then add the comment as you state on each of the patch file lines that are from or derived from the original project. Should there be a line in the license file referencing the comment? e.g. "Lines including <comment> are covered by the following copyright/license"?
– Godric Seer
Apr 21 at 15:16
@GodricSeer Oh, you're right. Add an explanation about the licenses and commented lines somewhere in a readme or license file. That should be sufficient.
– Smart455
Apr 21 at 15:28
1
Copyright does not work on a line-by-line basis. Therefor, it is pointless for copyright purposes to mark individual lines with who wrote them.
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 8:09
@BartvanIngenSchenau You have the right to have your own opinion. That's why it's good to have different answers from different perspectives. Too bad you also think that everything you disagree with would somehow be incorrect. You also fail to understand that something that the law requires doesn't necessarily have to be convenient to the coder or to the manager/maintainer of open source project.
– Smart455
Apr 22 at 13:44
2
@Smart455 When we talk about law, the only thing that really counts is the text of the law and how it gets interpreted by judges in their rulings. Opinions by others can be helpful, depending on the qualifications of the one giving the opinion and the availability of verifiable references to more qualified sources. Unsubstantiated opinions by random strangers on the internet rank completely at the bottom. So, I repeat, can you substantiate your claims with regard to how copyright law works?
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 18:32
|
show 5 more comments
A patch file has a distinctive format that allows a tool to recreate a derived work from an original work. In order to correctly do that, the tool must be given the correct (version of the) original work.
This means that for your patch file to be effective, you need to tell recipients of your project which third-party project it is based upon and then you can document there as well what license that project is under and fulfill your license obligations.
If you copied more from the original project than those few lines of context in a patch file, then it is considered wiser to mention both licenses in a LICENSE file.
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8215%2freleasing-patch-file-for-bsd3-licensed-project%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are few ways to solve your problem. In order to be legally safest I would find those few lines from the original project, mark them with comments /* Name of the original copyright holder + BSD3 */, and then would include the original license along side with your own. Since you are going to release your own project as open source, then those lines might get erased in the future. When that happens with all those lines, then you can scrap the old license.
If you want to avoid this situation with your own project and mark each line written by a contributor then it would be necessary to sign CLA's with your contributors.
Good luck!
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
Perfect, so a license file that is essentially: "My copyright, BSD-3, Original Copyright, BSD-3" then add the comment as you state on each of the patch file lines that are from or derived from the original project. Should there be a line in the license file referencing the comment? e.g. "Lines including <comment> are covered by the following copyright/license"?
– Godric Seer
Apr 21 at 15:16
@GodricSeer Oh, you're right. Add an explanation about the licenses and commented lines somewhere in a readme or license file. That should be sufficient.
– Smart455
Apr 21 at 15:28
1
Copyright does not work on a line-by-line basis. Therefor, it is pointless for copyright purposes to mark individual lines with who wrote them.
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 8:09
@BartvanIngenSchenau You have the right to have your own opinion. That's why it's good to have different answers from different perspectives. Too bad you also think that everything you disagree with would somehow be incorrect. You also fail to understand that something that the law requires doesn't necessarily have to be convenient to the coder or to the manager/maintainer of open source project.
– Smart455
Apr 22 at 13:44
2
@Smart455 When we talk about law, the only thing that really counts is the text of the law and how it gets interpreted by judges in their rulings. Opinions by others can be helpful, depending on the qualifications of the one giving the opinion and the availability of verifiable references to more qualified sources. Unsubstantiated opinions by random strangers on the internet rank completely at the bottom. So, I repeat, can you substantiate your claims with regard to how copyright law works?
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 18:32
|
show 5 more comments
There are few ways to solve your problem. In order to be legally safest I would find those few lines from the original project, mark them with comments /* Name of the original copyright holder + BSD3 */, and then would include the original license along side with your own. Since you are going to release your own project as open source, then those lines might get erased in the future. When that happens with all those lines, then you can scrap the old license.
If you want to avoid this situation with your own project and mark each line written by a contributor then it would be necessary to sign CLA's with your contributors.
Good luck!
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
Perfect, so a license file that is essentially: "My copyright, BSD-3, Original Copyright, BSD-3" then add the comment as you state on each of the patch file lines that are from or derived from the original project. Should there be a line in the license file referencing the comment? e.g. "Lines including <comment> are covered by the following copyright/license"?
– Godric Seer
Apr 21 at 15:16
@GodricSeer Oh, you're right. Add an explanation about the licenses and commented lines somewhere in a readme or license file. That should be sufficient.
– Smart455
Apr 21 at 15:28
1
Copyright does not work on a line-by-line basis. Therefor, it is pointless for copyright purposes to mark individual lines with who wrote them.
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 8:09
@BartvanIngenSchenau You have the right to have your own opinion. That's why it's good to have different answers from different perspectives. Too bad you also think that everything you disagree with would somehow be incorrect. You also fail to understand that something that the law requires doesn't necessarily have to be convenient to the coder or to the manager/maintainer of open source project.
– Smart455
Apr 22 at 13:44
2
@Smart455 When we talk about law, the only thing that really counts is the text of the law and how it gets interpreted by judges in their rulings. Opinions by others can be helpful, depending on the qualifications of the one giving the opinion and the availability of verifiable references to more qualified sources. Unsubstantiated opinions by random strangers on the internet rank completely at the bottom. So, I repeat, can you substantiate your claims with regard to how copyright law works?
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 18:32
|
show 5 more comments
There are few ways to solve your problem. In order to be legally safest I would find those few lines from the original project, mark them with comments /* Name of the original copyright holder + BSD3 */, and then would include the original license along side with your own. Since you are going to release your own project as open source, then those lines might get erased in the future. When that happens with all those lines, then you can scrap the old license.
If you want to avoid this situation with your own project and mark each line written by a contributor then it would be necessary to sign CLA's with your contributors.
Good luck!
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
There are few ways to solve your problem. In order to be legally safest I would find those few lines from the original project, mark them with comments /* Name of the original copyright holder + BSD3 */, and then would include the original license along side with your own. Since you are going to release your own project as open source, then those lines might get erased in the future. When that happens with all those lines, then you can scrap the old license.
If you want to avoid this situation with your own project and mark each line written by a contributor then it would be necessary to sign CLA's with your contributors.
Good luck!
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
answered Apr 21 at 15:05
Smart455Smart455
858
858
Perfect, so a license file that is essentially: "My copyright, BSD-3, Original Copyright, BSD-3" then add the comment as you state on each of the patch file lines that are from or derived from the original project. Should there be a line in the license file referencing the comment? e.g. "Lines including <comment> are covered by the following copyright/license"?
– Godric Seer
Apr 21 at 15:16
@GodricSeer Oh, you're right. Add an explanation about the licenses and commented lines somewhere in a readme or license file. That should be sufficient.
– Smart455
Apr 21 at 15:28
1
Copyright does not work on a line-by-line basis. Therefor, it is pointless for copyright purposes to mark individual lines with who wrote them.
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 8:09
@BartvanIngenSchenau You have the right to have your own opinion. That's why it's good to have different answers from different perspectives. Too bad you also think that everything you disagree with would somehow be incorrect. You also fail to understand that something that the law requires doesn't necessarily have to be convenient to the coder or to the manager/maintainer of open source project.
– Smart455
Apr 22 at 13:44
2
@Smart455 When we talk about law, the only thing that really counts is the text of the law and how it gets interpreted by judges in their rulings. Opinions by others can be helpful, depending on the qualifications of the one giving the opinion and the availability of verifiable references to more qualified sources. Unsubstantiated opinions by random strangers on the internet rank completely at the bottom. So, I repeat, can you substantiate your claims with regard to how copyright law works?
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 18:32
|
show 5 more comments
Perfect, so a license file that is essentially: "My copyright, BSD-3, Original Copyright, BSD-3" then add the comment as you state on each of the patch file lines that are from or derived from the original project. Should there be a line in the license file referencing the comment? e.g. "Lines including <comment> are covered by the following copyright/license"?
– Godric Seer
Apr 21 at 15:16
@GodricSeer Oh, you're right. Add an explanation about the licenses and commented lines somewhere in a readme or license file. That should be sufficient.
– Smart455
Apr 21 at 15:28
1
Copyright does not work on a line-by-line basis. Therefor, it is pointless for copyright purposes to mark individual lines with who wrote them.
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 8:09
@BartvanIngenSchenau You have the right to have your own opinion. That's why it's good to have different answers from different perspectives. Too bad you also think that everything you disagree with would somehow be incorrect. You also fail to understand that something that the law requires doesn't necessarily have to be convenient to the coder or to the manager/maintainer of open source project.
– Smart455
Apr 22 at 13:44
2
@Smart455 When we talk about law, the only thing that really counts is the text of the law and how it gets interpreted by judges in their rulings. Opinions by others can be helpful, depending on the qualifications of the one giving the opinion and the availability of verifiable references to more qualified sources. Unsubstantiated opinions by random strangers on the internet rank completely at the bottom. So, I repeat, can you substantiate your claims with regard to how copyright law works?
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 18:32
Perfect, so a license file that is essentially: "My copyright, BSD-3, Original Copyright, BSD-3" then add the comment as you state on each of the patch file lines that are from or derived from the original project. Should there be a line in the license file referencing the comment? e.g. "Lines including <comment> are covered by the following copyright/license"?
– Godric Seer
Apr 21 at 15:16
Perfect, so a license file that is essentially: "My copyright, BSD-3, Original Copyright, BSD-3" then add the comment as you state on each of the patch file lines that are from or derived from the original project. Should there be a line in the license file referencing the comment? e.g. "Lines including <comment> are covered by the following copyright/license"?
– Godric Seer
Apr 21 at 15:16
@GodricSeer Oh, you're right. Add an explanation about the licenses and commented lines somewhere in a readme or license file. That should be sufficient.
– Smart455
Apr 21 at 15:28
@GodricSeer Oh, you're right. Add an explanation about the licenses and commented lines somewhere in a readme or license file. That should be sufficient.
– Smart455
Apr 21 at 15:28
1
1
Copyright does not work on a line-by-line basis. Therefor, it is pointless for copyright purposes to mark individual lines with who wrote them.
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 8:09
Copyright does not work on a line-by-line basis. Therefor, it is pointless for copyright purposes to mark individual lines with who wrote them.
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 8:09
@BartvanIngenSchenau You have the right to have your own opinion. That's why it's good to have different answers from different perspectives. Too bad you also think that everything you disagree with would somehow be incorrect. You also fail to understand that something that the law requires doesn't necessarily have to be convenient to the coder or to the manager/maintainer of open source project.
– Smart455
Apr 22 at 13:44
@BartvanIngenSchenau You have the right to have your own opinion. That's why it's good to have different answers from different perspectives. Too bad you also think that everything you disagree with would somehow be incorrect. You also fail to understand that something that the law requires doesn't necessarily have to be convenient to the coder or to the manager/maintainer of open source project.
– Smart455
Apr 22 at 13:44
2
2
@Smart455 When we talk about law, the only thing that really counts is the text of the law and how it gets interpreted by judges in their rulings. Opinions by others can be helpful, depending on the qualifications of the one giving the opinion and the availability of verifiable references to more qualified sources. Unsubstantiated opinions by random strangers on the internet rank completely at the bottom. So, I repeat, can you substantiate your claims with regard to how copyright law works?
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 18:32
@Smart455 When we talk about law, the only thing that really counts is the text of the law and how it gets interpreted by judges in their rulings. Opinions by others can be helpful, depending on the qualifications of the one giving the opinion and the availability of verifiable references to more qualified sources. Unsubstantiated opinions by random strangers on the internet rank completely at the bottom. So, I repeat, can you substantiate your claims with regard to how copyright law works?
– Bart van Ingen Schenau
Apr 22 at 18:32
|
show 5 more comments
A patch file has a distinctive format that allows a tool to recreate a derived work from an original work. In order to correctly do that, the tool must be given the correct (version of the) original work.
This means that for your patch file to be effective, you need to tell recipients of your project which third-party project it is based upon and then you can document there as well what license that project is under and fulfill your license obligations.
If you copied more from the original project than those few lines of context in a patch file, then it is considered wiser to mention both licenses in a LICENSE file.
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
add a comment |
A patch file has a distinctive format that allows a tool to recreate a derived work from an original work. In order to correctly do that, the tool must be given the correct (version of the) original work.
This means that for your patch file to be effective, you need to tell recipients of your project which third-party project it is based upon and then you can document there as well what license that project is under and fulfill your license obligations.
If you copied more from the original project than those few lines of context in a patch file, then it is considered wiser to mention both licenses in a LICENSE file.
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
add a comment |
A patch file has a distinctive format that allows a tool to recreate a derived work from an original work. In order to correctly do that, the tool must be given the correct (version of the) original work.
This means that for your patch file to be effective, you need to tell recipients of your project which third-party project it is based upon and then you can document there as well what license that project is under and fulfill your license obligations.
If you copied more from the original project than those few lines of context in a patch file, then it is considered wiser to mention both licenses in a LICENSE file.
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
A patch file has a distinctive format that allows a tool to recreate a derived work from an original work. In order to correctly do that, the tool must be given the correct (version of the) original work.
This means that for your patch file to be effective, you need to tell recipients of your project which third-party project it is based upon and then you can document there as well what license that project is under and fulfill your license obligations.
If you copied more from the original project than those few lines of context in a patch file, then it is considered wiser to mention both licenses in a LICENSE file.
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
answered Apr 22 at 8:24
Bart van Ingen SchenauBart van Ingen Schenau
6,1381124
6,1381124
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8215%2freleasing-patch-file-for-bsd3-licensed-project%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
