The Honest Public License
A few weeks ago, I wrote a post about my way of doing dual licensing, keeping myself honest with the open source community. Today, I would like to turn the table and ask the community to be honest with itself.
The problem I am addressing is the famous "ASP loophole" of the GPL v2. Famous because everybody in the industry talks about it, but nobody has ever done anything about it ;-) The loophole is easy to explain: GPL v2 talks about distribution of software and includes a copyleft clause that triggers when you distribute your code (that is, everything around the code becomes GPL as well). In 1991, we used floppies to distribute software. I still remember booting Linux with the boot and root floppies and getting the network piece of the OS with N1, N2, etc. Nowadays, the world of software is seeing a shift to distributing software as a service (SaaS). I believe 90% of the software will be distributed as SaaS in the coming years.
What's the ASP loophole? Some people interpret distribution of software as a service not as distribution of software (because GPL v2 was created before web services were on the horizon and therefore did not address them in the license). They believe that they can use open source software to offer services to the public, without returning anything to the community. That's taking open source software as free beer. It is just not being honest with the community, to the people who sweat to write the code to see someone running away with it and not contributing anything back. That's totally against the spirit of free software and the GPL. You have the freedom to use it for yourself or internally in your organization, but when you distribute it to the public, you have to give back to the community. It is that simple. That's the spirit of GPL. That's why open source will take over the world of software: it creates great software and phenomenal support.
I have always included distribution of software as a service in my interpretation of the GPL, but I am not a lawyer. And lawyers always find a way around something, if it is not spelled out in a clear way (I am talking about my brother, mostly ;-) Therefore, for my interpretation to be valid, a brief clarification of the GPL v2 is needed.
That's why we created the first draft of the Honest Public License, a slight modification of GPL v2 with just an additional paragraph (here you can see the diff between HPL and GPL v2). We took that paragraph from the latest draft of GPL v3, relaxing it a bit (what's in GPL v3 was taken from AGPL, but I feel it to be too strong, since it is not based on trust -> I trust my community, I do not need to force them to open a service for me to suck up their code). The goal is to make HPL upward compatible with GPL v3 as much as possible (one note: the FSF is thinking about the ASP loophole, not just Affero or me ;-) We sent it to the FSF for review (I would love to keep the preamble, if they allow me to do it), to lots of open source luminaries (that gave it the thumbs up) and intend to submit it to the OSI.
The goal of HPL is to keep the community honest with itself. The use of the name "Honest" is ABSOLUTELY not intended to mean that GPL or any other licenses are dishonest. It is quite the opposite, actually. But some people are taking advantage of a GPL legal loophole and are defeating the spirit of the GPL. HPL is just GPL extended to cover the distribution of software as a service to the public. It does not take away any freedom (i.e. you can use it internally in your corporation), it just covers when someone distributes the code to the public (whether with a floppy or as a service). It is meant to keep people honest with their community.
What motivated this new license now? We have a general availability version of Funambol coming out in September. I already know there are commercial companies that are live with our code and do not return anything. More than two years ago, we did something similar, switching Sync4j from BSD to GPL. There were companies taking our code and running away with it, without returning anything. One even managed to get public with software based on our code, and our community never saw a line of their modifications. Now is no different. On top of this, I followed a discussion on Matt's blog, which made me think that nobody has ever done anything about the loophole because large interests are at stake (I really would love to see the improvements to the Linux file system that have been made, I could use them for my open source project ;-)
In any case, this is a battle for open source, not against anyone in particular. It is a fight to keep the spirit of open source alive, more than anything else. We'll keep the license open for comments for thirty days (please click on comments below to leave your opinion) and then we will finalize it. My hope is that HPL one day will disappear because GPL v3 will supersede it. I plan to work hard to make it happen in the upcoming months.
The problem I am addressing is the famous "ASP loophole" of the GPL v2. Famous because everybody in the industry talks about it, but nobody has ever done anything about it ;-) The loophole is easy to explain: GPL v2 talks about distribution of software and includes a copyleft clause that triggers when you distribute your code (that is, everything around the code becomes GPL as well). In 1991, we used floppies to distribute software. I still remember booting Linux with the boot and root floppies and getting the network piece of the OS with N1, N2, etc. Nowadays, the world of software is seeing a shift to distributing software as a service (SaaS). I believe 90% of the software will be distributed as SaaS in the coming years.
What's the ASP loophole? Some people interpret distribution of software as a service not as distribution of software (because GPL v2 was created before web services were on the horizon and therefore did not address them in the license). They believe that they can use open source software to offer services to the public, without returning anything to the community. That's taking open source software as free beer. It is just not being honest with the community, to the people who sweat to write the code to see someone running away with it and not contributing anything back. That's totally against the spirit of free software and the GPL. You have the freedom to use it for yourself or internally in your organization, but when you distribute it to the public, you have to give back to the community. It is that simple. That's the spirit of GPL. That's why open source will take over the world of software: it creates great software and phenomenal support.
I have always included distribution of software as a service in my interpretation of the GPL, but I am not a lawyer. And lawyers always find a way around something, if it is not spelled out in a clear way (I am talking about my brother, mostly ;-) Therefore, for my interpretation to be valid, a brief clarification of the GPL v2 is needed.
That's why we created the first draft of the Honest Public License, a slight modification of GPL v2 with just an additional paragraph (here you can see the diff between HPL and GPL v2). We took that paragraph from the latest draft of GPL v3, relaxing it a bit (what's in GPL v3 was taken from AGPL, but I feel it to be too strong, since it is not based on trust -> I trust my community, I do not need to force them to open a service for me to suck up their code). The goal is to make HPL upward compatible with GPL v3 as much as possible (one note: the FSF is thinking about the ASP loophole, not just Affero or me ;-) We sent it to the FSF for review (I would love to keep the preamble, if they allow me to do it), to lots of open source luminaries (that gave it the thumbs up) and intend to submit it to the OSI.
The goal of HPL is to keep the community honest with itself. The use of the name "Honest" is ABSOLUTELY not intended to mean that GPL or any other licenses are dishonest. It is quite the opposite, actually. But some people are taking advantage of a GPL legal loophole and are defeating the spirit of the GPL. HPL is just GPL extended to cover the distribution of software as a service to the public. It does not take away any freedom (i.e. you can use it internally in your corporation), it just covers when someone distributes the code to the public (whether with a floppy or as a service). It is meant to keep people honest with their community.
What motivated this new license now? We have a general availability version of Funambol coming out in September. I already know there are commercial companies that are live with our code and do not return anything. More than two years ago, we did something similar, switching Sync4j from BSD to GPL. There were companies taking our code and running away with it, without returning anything. One even managed to get public with software based on our code, and our community never saw a line of their modifications. Now is no different. On top of this, I followed a discussion on Matt's blog, which made me think that nobody has ever done anything about the loophole because large interests are at stake (I really would love to see the improvements to the Linux file system that have been made, I could use them for my open source project ;-)
In any case, this is a battle for open source, not against anyone in particular. It is a fight to keep the spirit of open source alive, more than anything else. We'll keep the license open for comments for thirty days (please click on comments below to leave your opinion) and then we will finalize it. My hope is that HPL one day will disappear because GPL v3 will supersede it. I plan to work hard to make it happen in the upcoming months.
43 Comments:
Very interesting reading.
I am a little bit confused with the second paragraph and what distributing software as a service is exactly. I am trying to put together what it means, but it just doesn't seem like my definition is correct (maybe it is, but I don't think it is because I think it would be wrong to do).
Also, what does this mean for charging for GPL software (mainly fees for support and the like)?
-Donald
Hi Donald,
distributing software as a service is offering software in ASP, where you do not physically ship the software to your users.
The HPL does not have anything to do with charging, it is exactly as GPL (same answer as to the "how do I charge for GPL software?" question).
Ok, I get it now! The customer never actually obtains the software, it just runs on the "providers" servers. I would guess that this would be similar to Google Calendar or Spreadsheet?
I think I see the loophole now. Under the GPL an ASP could host the software, and not provide the source code, correct? With the HPL, the ASP would have to provide the source code?
Hi Fabrizio,
I think I understand where you are coming from with your HPL proposal; if people run the licensed software as a service, they need to pass on the license and make the source code available to all users. I'm curious how this works for Funambol's business model though.
Funambol has a dual-licensing approach, currently either commercial or GPL. But in my interpretation, currently under the GPL, and even under this new HPL license, if a company wanted to run a Funambol server and charge end-users for access to the service, they could still do this without paying Funambol any commercial licensing fees, as long as they are willing to make the source code available to any user that requests it. Does Funambol plan to make money by hoping people will pay for a commercial license just to avoid the burden of delivering source code upon request? Even when customizations are made to use the Funambol software with a proprietary system, the 'connector' model can be used to isolate the proprietary system and limit the amount of 'custom' code that needs to be released to only the code in the 'connector' module. If connecting to a proprietary system were not possible without making source code of the proprietary system available, then how can Funambol release an Exchange connector under GPL without also releasing the Exchange source code?
I guess the HPL would protect against people making significant changes to the Funambol server and making that the core of their business, without giving the code back to the community. Using the software for any use, personal or commercial, would still be allowed as long as changes to the software itself are made available.
- cj
Hi cj,
if people run Funambol as a service and return their changes and stuff around it (GPL is viral...) to the community, I am totally fine. Everybody will benefit, including us. That's the spirit of open source. What bothers me is that some think they can run away with the code and not return anything to the community. Open source is not free as in free beer. You have to pay: give back the code.
Obviously, for people that do not want to give back, the honest dual licensing applies. It is quid pro quo: you give back code or you give back cash, that we are going to use to improve the product (and pay for our kids going to school). There is no free beer.
Hi Donald,
you got it perfectly right.
fabrizio
Hi everybody!
My question: where do you draw the line?
Case1: I change something deep inside Funambol server
Case2: I build a new SyncSource
Case3: I develop a WebApplication using/controling Funambol server functionality on an unchanged Funambol Server
Case4: I develop a WebApplication using the data syncd by Funambol Server
When should I provide my sourcecode?
Another question: How do you define "public"?
Thanks for your comments,
Markus
I understand what you are trying to
achieve and am sympathetic with it. Having said that, I'd also have to
raise my concerns:
1. The new license must be GPL compatible, i.e. it must be possible to link GPL libraries against it without requiring special permissions from the authors of those libraries. The Affero license tried something similar as you, but that made it GPL incompatible [1]. If the new license is not GPL-compatible, then this license change will hurt the open source community considerably. This applies to both the client and the server side.
2. The legal status and the GPL compatibility of the new license must be very clear and should be evaluated by authorities in the field, ideally the FSF itself. Otherwise there'll always be doubt about the legality of linking it against GPL - I personally have those doubts and it will require some very good arguments to convince me otherwise.
3. A clarification of how the GPL/HPL applies to Java would be beneficial. If you aggregate different modules on an application server, does that constitute linking? Probably not. Are custom SyncSources linked into the Funambol server in the sense of the GPL? I suppose they are, even if they are installed separately.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#TOCGPLIncompatibleLicenses
You've made some nice points about dishonesty of the loophole abusers, but you haven't stated much arguments from a less moral and more pragmatic point of view.
I wrote quite a lengthy article on the subject of Free Software and SaaS. Especialy the last part titled "Economic impact of the GPL" may be interesting to you as it stresses the significance of the proper viral clause effect.
You can read it at:
http://astariand.com/wikka.php?wakka=FreeServices
The HPL seems illegal !
The GPL clearly states at the very beginning :
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."
In the current legal context this restriction is an unfortunate necessity.
Mister Capobianco openly admits to not having permission to use the GPL in this way. Here we have a person who has basically stolen the GPL, added a clause, changed it's name and called it a "new" licence.
I wonder if he has considered participating in the discussion about the next generation of FSF licences, even if this means dealing with people who have different opinions than him, and people who can be on occasion rather opinionated. He could probably contribute greatly to the community, as his points seem otherwise valid.
Another point : I find this constant description of the GPL as "viral" rather frustrating. First a product may by no means be "contaminated" by GPL code, it's owners must *choose* to use the GPL. In a world where states are allowed to dictate how an individual is allowed to use knowledge, some are grateful that the laws that are used to control knowledge can also be used to force it to be free. The use of the GPL is a choice, a political choice. There are other licences, open source or otherwise which may be used, and are in some cases this is preferable (the FSF recommends releasing code snippets as Public Domain for example). In the end the choice is in the hands of the developers, the GPL doesn't force them into anything, unless they are distributing somebody else code, in which case they must share.
Patrick, Markus,
you touched on the most important aspect of this change for our product. Where you draw the line?
I feel we should make sure that HPL is compatible to other OSS licenses, when it comes to building a SyncSource or a Client. MySQL had the same problem, so did Hyperic. The solution could be something like the FLOSS exception of MySQL (check it on their site). We could relax the license for clients and connectors, to allow different OSS licenses to work when integrating with our server. That would solve any incompatibility problem and foster development of even more clients and connectors (even BSD ones).
On the definition of "public", I believe it to be clear enough. If you using internally (yourself or your organization), you are not giving it to the public. If you are offering an ASP service to the public... that's easy. It is the same as distribution with GPL: when does it apply? When you get a CD from your IT manager? When you give it to a customer?
Cheers,
fabrizio
Hi Tomasz,
very interesting article.
I really like the Greater GPL concept. I disagree on Linux not caring about what Google is doing to it. I am sure the file system changes are something spectacular, that everyone in the OS community would like to see (despite Google - for now - does not have an OS competing with Linux).
In general, I loved your article. I would like to see if we can make HPL the "Greater GPL", because virality is what made open source what it is today. If we relax it, we are toasted.
fabrizio
Dear anonymous,
we asked the FSF for permission to change the GPL and they told it was ok for us to do it, but we should remove the preamble. I can assure you HPL is not illegal. We are talking to the FSF and waiting for feedback, which will be incorporated in the next draft. We care about what the FSF thinks. We want this to be a temporary step forward towards GPL v3.
Your comment "In the end the choice is in the hands of the developers, the GPL doesn't force them into anything, unless they are distributing somebody else code, in which case they must share." makes my day. Let me subscribe to it and HPL saying "distributing software including distributing software as a service" and we are on the same page.
BTW, I love opinionated people and discussions. Funambol is a very large open source project. It is full of opinionated people. If I did not care about opionions, I would have changed our license, called Funambol Public License. I did not. I threw the concept out, for discussion with opinionated people. It is the best way to improve your ideas in the first place.
Thanks for contributing to the debate.
fabrizio
Hi everybody!
Fabrizio, thanks for your comment.
Actually I think my post was not really interpreted the way I intended.
To be HONEST: I am a student of computer science, I just started to get used to Funambol server, I have a new idea for an application based on Funambol server provided as a service and my primary goal is to make money with that idea as I have to earn some after graduation.
From my point of view, many successfull and complex open source projects are driven by companies, often with dual licensing (see JBoss, Mysql, Funambol etc.). Thier business models only work because there are companies out there that don't want to use GPL and pay for not using it. This business model is not possible for ASP when their service is based on GPL/HPL, neither is consultancy (at least I haven't seen a possibility yet).
To be not missunderstood: I don't want to take free software as free beer, but I acutally see big problems as I don’t see any other ASP business model then by user fees or by ads.
Given I realized my idea, put it on a small server I can afford starting my business. Anyone can take it, put it on a faster server with more space for user data and make the money (given my idea works). How can you solve that dilemma?
To be true – I don’t know. The only thing I can image (even if I know this point rises new problems to discuss) is making ASPs to make their changed code public a certain time after they release a feature to public. This would give them some possibility to make money / grow their community but their code gets back to the open source community (not immediately of course).
If you really decide to intorduce the HPL, I think it is very very important to draw the lines in the ASP point with clear concrete examples in an less abstract view than in the discussions above (please feel free to refer to my cases posted before) because there is nothing you can refer to yet. Also and especially if it comes to other services provided by the same ASP that are somehow connected to Funambol server.
I like the idea of Open Souce but I just can’t see how the HPL works together with ASP business models (which is needed if you don’t do it just for fun or to complete your other services).
Awaiting your comments,
Markus
BTW: Maybe you should put a link to this discussion on www.funambol.com/opensource
Fabrizio,
you replied to my concerns that the HPL might make it illegal to combine it with GPL libraries saying that "The solution could be something like the FLOSS exception of MySQL (check it on their site)."
I had a look and found that this does not address my concerns: MySQL is pure GPL, with the mentioned FLOSS exception which relaxes the license to allow linking against libraries that are not GPL and not already compatible with it.
The HPL might turn out to be one of those incompatible licenses, so you would have to ask the MySQL authors to add the HPL to their exception list, then repeat that with every other GPL library again and again...
Let me repeat: it's not your permission which is needed (and which you certainly would be happy to grant), it is the permission of every other involved party because their GPL license might not allow linking against HPL.
Best regards, Patrick
Hi Patrick,
I am not convinced you are right (I feel HPL will be incompatible with GPL, but it will be ok with a FLOSS exception that also includes GPL), but I am not a lawyer. In any case, do not worry, top open source luminaries and lawyers are working on it, collecting all the feeback we are getting. We'll get everything clarified for the next draft.
Cheers.
fabrizio
Markus,
The whole point of the change is that you can't take the server, develop something for it and not release the changes *without paying money to Funambol* to license the server under commercial license.
So if you want to pursue your "business model" you have to include the price of the license in your business costs, or build the server functionality yourself (or use earlier Sync4j version which is under GPL, or use a competing product if you can get it for a lower price).
I can see why Funambol the company wants this change - after all their product is a middleware product which is almost solely (I guess) used as a part of an "software as a service" -model and making money selling licenses might be harder than with "traditional" GPL software - for an example there is a great number of companies paying license fees to MySQL AB (we are...) because they are building products where they embed MySQL. Selling a software product where Funambol is embedded is much more uncommon, I think...
And yes, we are using Sync4j at the moment too, and evaluating our options - publishing our SyncSource is one option although it is of no use without the software it connects to, and because that software is an in-house application the SyncSource would be of very little use to anyone.
What is bothering me is incertainty - when will the next license change occur and what would that be? What is the price to pay (and future price?) if we want to be certain that development on Funambol is the right choice? Should we be better off with a fully commercial (closed source) product?
This is not a very simple matter...
Kari
Hi Kari,
I believe your comment on our product being used mostly as a service is right to the point. With HPL, we just want people to return their code back to the community.
If people do not want to return their code, Funambol embeds the Honest Dual Licensing model that accommodates that need.
It is your choice, quid pro quo: you either return code to the community or give cash to Funambol which will be used to improve the code for the community. I personally suggest you open source your code (I am assuming my salespeople do not read this blog :-) but it is your choice.
Regarding your questions:
- you can definitely sell your SyncSource, even if you make it available under HPL (or GPL or any other license we will make it compatible with)
- when will the HPL be final? By mid September, when we will release Funambol 3.0 GA
- would you better off with a commercial product? I do not think so, the advantages of open source are clearly there, even if you do not want to open source your code. At the end of the day, it is the same codebase plus support directly from the people that write that code. It is future proof: you have the code (!!) and if we get hit by a bus, you'll keep it and you'll find many people able to help you on it (a.k.a. the "bus factor").
Cheers,
fabrizio
Fabrizio,
Thank you for your time and answers.
To clarify a few points:
- I am well aware of the advantages of open source software. In a sense (as you pointed out) it is "a safer option" than a closed source one. What I was referring to was that to invest development and testing time to a product it is nice to have a clear path and some promise of the associated costs and needed licenses - at the present time *and* in the forseeable future. I understand that the license to Sync4j has changed in the past, and it is now changing again. This is bad. I should probably call the sales people...
- If it comes to that we decide that we need the Funambol 3.0 instead of the current version, we will probably just publish the sync source code. But as I said - it is of no use to anyone outside our organization because it relies on an in-house backend which is not available publicly (more precisely it just communicates over JDBC to database which has a schema very specific to this application). Only thing is that I have to clean up the code, remove some comments and abstract the SQL a bit more - that is causing "unnecessary" costs, but hey, maybe it is for good...
-Kari
I am wondering if and how HPL (or Greater GPL, heh) should relate to Terms of Service - after all ToS are also some form of license agreement and surely each service provider should be allowed to create his own Terms of Service - they can be very different even among similar services.
Example: somebody creates brilliant webmail service for spammers - with support for databases of open relays, automatic From field changing, babelfishing spam to national languages and wormnet control panel. In his ToS he definitely won't forbid spam. But later on somebody else modifies the code and using it creates anonymizing service. In his ToS he might want to forbid spam.
Another thing - perhaps there should be a requirement or suggestion that an information about software licensing and source availability should be present in ToS.
An update on the HPL review process: we met with the lawyer today and we probably are going to keep HPL for the server and GPL for the client, to make things easier for everybody. In general, HPL does not make sense for clients, which are not used as services (...), so let's not complicate things. I hope this will solve the issues raised by Patrick.
In the meantime, we are pushing forward to get more comments from FSF. Eben Moglen, general counsel of FSF, in an interview << made it clear that he does not object to the idea behind the license, which he called "a perfectly legitimate position about how community ought to work, that if people produce code from commons to offer services," they should give back the code. >> He also said the timing was not great, but unfortunately we could not do anything different. We cannot release 3.0 GA in March 2007... I am really looking forward to talking to them asap (I understand they are in India at the moment).
fabrizio
Hello Fabrizio,
yes, keeping the client code under GPL avoids the problem for me, but have the question that I raised been clarified?
A server developer still faces the same problems: is it legal to link GPL libraries against a server under HPL? To which extend does the HPL apply to server SyncSources that are installed into the server and/or distributed together with it?
These will be frequently asked questions and it would be good if Funambol published answers to them together with the 3.0 HPL licensed server.
Bye, Patrick
Hi Patrick,
few quick answers, that we definitely will clarify in a FAQ.
> A server developer still faces the same problems: is it legal to link GPL libraries against a server under HPL?
No, HPL will clearly end up in the incompatibility list, as AGPL. So you will not be able to link a GPL library against the Funambol server. Your SyncSource must be HPL. However, because of dual licensing, Funambol could grant a special waiver for open source project that cannot switch the SyncSource to HPL.
> To which extend does the HPL apply to server SyncSources that are installed into the server and/or distributed together with it?
It applies.
Ciao,
fabrizio
Well.
GPL is a good licence. I can sell GPL program as long as I provide source code of software. It has been Idea of GPL all the time. If I modify software I have to give source code to others. If I provide this kind of software as service/ASP, it is same idea than If I sell it other way..
This is original idea of GPL. If you do not like it, don't use that license.
I'm affraid I'm not always as tech savy as I'd like to be- I'm not fully aware what the ASP Loophole is. Though, from context, it sounds like a loophole that lets companies not provide their new modified source because the code never actually leaves their servers, but is actually interfaced with through the internet. Am I correct in this? If so, that's incredibly shady.
The only way to obtain every state, county, and local license online is by going to http://www.businesslicenses.com
关爱生命，关注糖尿病，为糖尿病患者带来福音！
反应釜
搪瓷反应釜
搪瓷
生物柴油
造粒机
造粒
搜索引擎优化
搜索引擎优化
糖尿病
鲜花
游戏币
非淋菌性尿道炎
疱疹
美甲
网站优化
买金币
魔兽金币
疤痕
游戏币
买金币
魔兽金币
室内设计
癫痫
液晶电视
等离子电视
网络电话
癌症
肿瘤
食道癌
肝癌
胃癌
肺癌
脑瘤
乳腺癌
直肠癌
恶性淋巴瘤
淋巴癌
食道癌的治疗
肝癌治疗
肺癌治疗
胃癌治疗
乳腺癌的治疗
癌症治疗
肝硬化腹水
肝腹水
肝硬化
运用网站优化技术进行 搜索引擎优化及
Google优化提高 Google左侧排名并提供 SEO培训, 百度优化, Google推广! 大杭州是专业从事网页制作和
网站设计的 网络公司,提供企业 杭州网页制作服务,专业型外贸公司 网站建设服务, 网页设计
网页制作,
网站制作服务等.
网站优化
杭州企业展示产品有：毛巾毛巾厂压缩毛巾太阳能电池充电电池手机电池不锈钢不锈钢管不锈钢管制品耳机蓝牙耳机无线耳机干燥设备干燥设备厂木材干燥设备脚手架脚手架租赁快装脚手架计量泵隔膜计量泵等
做杭州婚庆的杭州婚庆公司提供杭州婚庆用车杭州商务庆典杭州婚庆摄像杭州婚庆策划吗？
彩票合买网致力彩票合买,足彩合买等网上买彩票服务。
冬虫夏草结冷胶
类风湿益赛普
冷干机
搅拌机混合机乳化机
分散机搅拌器
PCR仪
LED
西湖龙井云南普洱茶景德镇陶瓷
湖北程力专用汽车厂生产销售:
洒水车吸粪车垃圾车压缩式垃圾车油罐车吸污车高空作业车随车吊自卸车教练车厢式车专用车配件消防车半挂车冷藏车运水车牵引头清障车洒水车吸粪车垃圾车吸污车油罐车高空作业车随车吊自卸车教练车半挂车消防车专用车配件厢式货车冷藏车运水车牵引车散装水泥车液体车水泥搅拌车清障车等车辆，欢迎选购！
处女膜修补处女膜修复
视频光端机数字光端机接口转换器协议转换器天然气流量积算
光纤收发器
无纸记录仪
流量计算仪盘古MC盘古VX圆图记录仪信号校验仪杭州注册公司流程
杭州注册公司费用如何注册杭州公司
掼蛋
变机测试仪
开关电源老化
磁粉测功机
接地电阻测试仪
锦旗制作
气动隔膜泵在线粘度计
围巾除湿机
吊装带webbing sling
google优化google左侧排名google排名
百度优化
Search engine optimization (SEO), a division of search engine marketing (SEM), is a technique of bringing about an increase in traffic on your website. We use the concept of SEO to optimize any site, thereby bringing traffic to your site and also increasing its SERP.
管道离心泵
管道离心泵
食品公司-销售供销中心
安溪茗茶-茶叶供销中心
保健食品销售中心
大家看看未来的香港六合彩去向
2007年六合彩的去向
香港六合彩的危害性
茶叶-安溪铁观音|茗茶批发|销售中心
打击中关村六合彩|香港六合彩|大暴光
liuhecai公司
开奖结果
曾道人
liuhecai公司
白小姐
liuhecaitema
liuhecai百度
安溪茗茶-茶叶供销中心
liu合彩blog
香港六合彩彩票
[六合彩]赌博六合彩
香[六合彩]香港六合彩栏目
香港六合彩特码
香港六合彩游戏规则
六合彩的内幕
香港六合彩危害之深
香港六合彩在线
专家香港六合彩一码
香港六合彩经济
香港六合彩透码网站
香港六合彩给你一码中特
香港六合彩特等奖
[六合彩本期相关信息]在线华人网
香港六合彩提供特码
香港六合彩公司内幕料
香港六合彩图库内幕料
香港六合彩图库一码中特资料
香港六合彩图库网
综合香港六合彩资料一码
香港六合彩资料透特
香港六合彩网站
特码六合彩报码聊天室
特码白小姐图库
香港六合彩财神资讯中心
香港六合彩(liuhecai)
香港六合彩内幕机密偷偷公布
六合彩-香港六合彩
泉州警方生擒劫钞歹徒,与六合彩有关
香港六合彩询问特码
香港”六合彩”的信息-六合彩在线
广东省|六合彩|特码|liuhecai|香港六合彩|大公开
香港六合彩提供特码
六合彩”最新资料
透彻"香港六合彩"一码中特
中关村“六合彩”大暴光
美国打击“香港六合彩”庄家
香港六合彩打击庄家理由
香港六合彩一码打击庄家
沉迷香港“六合彩”主特码
香港“六合彩”特码信息
香港六合彩外围彩庄家
香港六合彩诱惑性
香港六合彩日历
揭秘地下“六合彩”特码玄机--逍遥王优化
香港六合彩特码伪装
香港六合彩特码暗剑
香港六合彩特码曝光
远离"六合彩"-共同打击"香港六合彩
全国全面整治香港六合彩图库特码大公开
香港六合彩真的还想再活五百年 六合彩| 香港六合彩新闻中心
缔造“香港六合彩”一码
“香港六合彩”有风险
香港“六合彩”庄家主一码OK
广东“香港六合彩”专项调查
“liuhecai”公开十二特码生肖
本站打击香港六合彩送资料
上海狠打击香港六合彩
六合彩一码中特OK
六合彩免费一码OK
香港六合彩特码曝光
香港六合彩中特“歪招”
福建专项整治“香港六合彩”
偷印“六合彩图库”的特码
“香港六合彩”唾弃
广东“香港六合彩”专项调查
“liuhecai”公开十二特码生肖
香港六合彩秘笈
香港六合彩专研调查
香港六合彩特码外围彩
六合彩诱惑不少人
香港六合彩内幕调查
“六合彩”一肖中特资料
“香港六合彩”特码
“香港六合彩”交易特码
香港六合彩重点整治
“六合彩图库”里有玄机
根除“香港六合彩”要通过科普宣传
香港六合彩会员料大公开会员料大公开
liuhecai公开十二特码生肖
香港六合彩
重点打击六合彩赌博
实行香港六合彩一码中特
香港六合彩特码准OK
单级离心泵
中开泵
不锈钢多级泵
氟塑料离心泵
塑料离心泵
管道离心泵
管道离心泵
不锈钢管道泵
油桶泵
磁力驱动泵
齿轮油泵
自吸油泵
电动隔膜泵
立式多级泵
不锈钢离心泵
单螺杆泵
多级管道泵
浓浆泵
化工离心泵
氟塑料离心泵
单级离心泵
卧式离心泵
不锈钢多级泵
卧式多级泵
管道油泵
自吸排污泵
单级离心泵
中开泵
不锈钢多级泵
氟塑料离心泵
塑料离心泵
管道离心泵
管道离心泵
不锈钢管道泵
油桶泵
磁力驱动泵
齿轮油泵
自吸油泵
电动隔膜泵
立式多级泵
不锈钢离心泵
单螺杆泵
多级管道泵
浓浆泵
化工离心泵
氟塑料离心泵
单级离心泵
卧式离心泵
不锈钢多级泵
卧式多级泵
管道油泵
自吸排污泵
癌症
风湿
风湿病
强直性脊柱炎的治疗
强直性脊柱炎症状
强直性脊柱炎的症状
强直性脊椎炎
类风湿性关节炎
类风湿关节炎
类风湿的治疗
风湿性关节炎
类风湿
强直性脊柱炎
牛皮癣
sitemap
牛皮癣
银屑病
牛皮癣的治疗
银屑病治疗
银屑病患者之家
牛皮癣图片
银屑病图片
如何治疗牛皮癣
牛皮癣症状
银屑病的治疗
牛皮癣
银屑病
加气混凝土
制砂机
球磨机
破碎机
破碎机
球磨机
砌块机
球磨机
雷蒙磨
免烧砖机
制砂机
破碎机
免烧砖机
破碎机
搜索引擎优化
室内设计
kvm
液晶电视
等离子电视
网络电话
香港注册公司
香港注册公司
供热展|采暖展|通风展|地暖展|北京供热展|北京采暖展
sitemap
雷蒙磨
制粉机
磨粉机
雷蒙磨
sitemap
骨髓炎的治疗
骨髓炎
耐火材料
买金币
搜索引擎优化
魔兽金币|游戏币
切换器
电脑切换器
视频分配器
VGA延长器
kvm
切换器
香港注册公司
香港注册公司
免烧砖机
砂石生产线
制砂机
石料生产线
球磨机
选矿设备
香港注册公司
香港注册公司
供热展|采暖展|通风展|地暖展|北京供热展|北京采暖展
sitemap
雷蒙磨
制粉机
磨粉机
雷蒙磨
sitemap
骨髓炎的治疗
骨髓炎
河南整形美容
瘦脸
抽脂
除皱
变性
丰胸
整形美容
整形美容
河南整形美容医院|河南整形美容|河南整形医院
河南整形美容医院|河南整形美容|河南整形医院欢迎光临
癫痫
癫痫
室内设计
粉碎机
输送设备
癌症
糖尿病
搜索引擎优化
搜索引擎优化
输送设备
反应釜
搪瓷反应釜
搪瓷
生物柴油
造粒机
造粒
kvm
切换器
电脑切换器
视频分配器
VGA延长器
香港注册公司
香港注册公司
kvm
buy levitrabuy levitra
供热展
衡器
衡器
工作服
加气混凝土设备
呼叫中心
95015
4007
北京空调公司
搜索引擎排名
北京空调公司
风管清洗
北京风管清洗
回收空调
空调拆装
中央空调清洗
空调清洗
空调移机
游戏交易网
魔兽世界金币
游戏币交易
衡器
电子汽车衡
sitemap
牛皮癣治疗
牛皮癣的治疗
银屑病治疗
银屑病患者之家
牛皮癣图片
银屑病图片
如何治疗牛皮癣
牛皮癣症状
银屑病的治疗
牛皮癣
银屑病
Thermal fogger
ULV Sprayer
Cold fogger
专栏
北京搬家
北京搬家公司
搬运车
液压叉车
粉碎机
起重机
癌症
搜索引擎排名
搜索引擎优化
乳腺癌
糖尿病
胃癌
切换器
kvm
kvm
风湿
强直性脊柱炎
类风湿
类风湿性关节炎
风湿性关节炎
风湿
风湿病
强直性脊柱炎的治疗
强直性脊柱炎症状
强直性脊柱炎的症状
强直性脊椎炎
类风湿性关节炎
类风湿关节炎
类风湿的治疗
强直性脊柱炎
起重机
癌症
糖尿病
胃癌
肝癌
乳腺癌
贲门癌
肿瘤
肺癌
直肠癌
Learn Chinese
Mandarin
Learn Chinese
Mandarin
衡器
电子汽车衡
加气混凝土设备
Thermal fogger
ULV Sprayer
Cold fogger
东风程力汽车国家发改委定点生产各类专用汽车的专业厂家，国家大型专用汽车制造厂。
国内知名园林绿化、石油化工、
市政环卫专用汽车制造商。
其主导品种有园林绿化洒水车、吸粪车
垃圾车、压缩式垃圾车、油罐车、吸污车、高空作业车、随车吊、自卸车、教练车、厢式车、专用车配件、消防车、半挂车、冷藏车、运水车、牵引头、清障车、牵引车、散装水泥车、化工液体车、水泥搅拌车等八大系列100多个品种车型。
提供各类车型产品价格：洒水车价格|吸粪车价格|垃圾车价格|吸污车价格|油罐车价格|高空作业车价格|压缩垃圾车价格|挂桶式垃圾车价格|摆臂式垃圾车价格、地坑式垃圾车价格|自卸车价格|运水车价格|厢式货车价格|消防车价格|冷藏车价格|教练车价格
新浪洒水车百度洒水车汽车博客网汽车和讯网
电话：0722-3812866 3817866
球磨机
痤疮
球磨机
电动滑板车
无痛人流
子宫肌瘤
肝硬化
肝腹水
肝硬化腹水
肝脾肿大
肝硬化治疗
肝腹水治疗
货架
乙肝
肝癌
肝腹水
帐篷
篷布
肝癌
工作服
类风湿
风湿
对对碰
黄金矿工
连连看
泡泡龙
太极
天车
友情连接
起重机
起重设备
桥式起重机
电动葫芦
防爆电动葫芦
行车
友情连接
起重机
起重设备
强直性脊柱炎
风湿性关节炎
类风性湿关节炎
风湿
类风性
痤疮
起重机
起重机
电动葫芦
起重机
论文代写
牛皮癣
银屑病
磁力泵
计量泵
北京空调公司
空调拆装
空调移机
冲孔网
球磨机
免烧压砖机
制砂机
气体检测仪
强直性脊柱炎
搜索引擎排名
alexa排名
造粒
衡器
癌症
搜索引擎优化
鲜花
肺癌
乳腺癌
胃癌
癌症
起重机
起重机
起重设备
电动葫芦
行车
天车
隔膜泵
婚纱
礼服
旗袍
婚纱批发|外贸婚纱|婚纱厂|婚纱配件
花童装
一字いっくこの招待状を讀み終わってから,私の心は長い時間平静になることができない.震かんしなさい!どうしてこのようなよい招待状がありますか. !私の思うままにネツト.ヮ-クbbsは数年,その以上どんな招待状が私を感動することができるはずがないと自分で思います.きょうェキスの立派な最も人の道のこんな一の招待状このようなを見たと思わなかった. ビルは主人,ましたが,貴方は私に深深ので地理は溶けるさせる''人をあるない,そらをあるない''この話. ??がありがとうございました!から私私俗っぼくで堪えられないの返事されてこのィンタワ-クの上すくないなある招待状をごすことができただかひゃひゃするならたか.しかし私やはり返事するですですなら,から感じるならもしことができない素晴らしいではないな招待状の後ろで自分のネットの名前を残しておく,私は死んで目的も閉じるはずがないです !このような素晴らしい招待状の後ろで自分の网の名前を残しておくことができるのがなんと傲慢な一つ?のことです!ビルの主人,すみません,のは利己的です! 私はなんとはなやかな詞そうでビルを形容しても,重要ですあなたの招待状の素晴らしい程度は全部足りないと知っています.全部僞りて,だから私はただ一句話したいです あなたの招待状はとてもきれいです!私は望んで生涯のは見続けます!この招待状の構想は新奇で,題材がォリジナリティ-に富んでいて,だんらくは明らか.プロットはあやしくて,こだわらなくて,重要な線は明らか.人を引きつけて佳境に入らせて,起こると示す非凡な文学の基礎に平板にあたって,という文字の文字の珠玉です. 南京翻译公司 南京翻译 上海翻译 上海翻译公司 上海翻译 上海翻译公司 高空维修 高空维修 高空维修 高空维修 高空维修 高空维修 高空维修 窃听器 窃听器 手机窃听器 手机窃听器 窃听器 手机窃听器 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 车床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床维修 数控车床程序 数控车床系统 数控车床的编程 西门子数控车床 数控车床技术 数控车床报价 cnc数控车床 数控车床仿真软件 数控车床编程软件 北京数控车床 数控机床 数控机床 数控车床学校 深圳数控车床 数控车床教程 数控车床培训学校 华中数控车床编程 数控车床软件 上海数控车床培训 数控车床仿真 经济型数控车床 华中数控车床 山东数控车床 南京数控车床 沈阳数控车床 无锡数控车床 教学数控车床 数控车床 西门子802s数控车床 精密数控车床 数控机床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 加工中心 加工中心 加工中心 加工中心 加工中心 南京数控 南京数控机床加工 苏州数控车床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 浙江数控车床 宁波数控车床 cnc数控车床 数控车床| 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 南京数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控车床 数控铣床 数控铣床 数控铣床 数控铣床 数控铣床 数控铣床 数控钻床 数控钻床 数控钻床 数控钻床 数控钻床 数控钻床 数控钻床 数控加工中心 数控加工中心 数控加工中心 数控加工中心 数控加工中心 数控加工中心 数控加工中心 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控车床简介 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控车床编程 数控系统 数控车床编程 数控车床 西门子数控车床 数控车床报价 数控机床 经济型数控车床 数控机床 北京数控车床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 数控机床 打包机 自动打包机 打包带机 半自动打包机 液压打包机 全自动打包机 手动打包机 金属打包机 打包扣机 气动打包机 棉花打包机 金属液压打包机 钢带打包机 全自动打包扣机 北京打包机 塑料打包机 二手打包机 纸箱打包机 手工打包机 杭州打包机 压缩打包机 废纸打包机 稻草打包机 秸杆打包机 深圳打包机 江苏打包机 铁皮打包机 兄弟牌打包机 打包机价格 进口打包机 pet 打包机 青岛打包机 垃圾打包机 机用打包带 瑞士打包机 立式打包机 手提 打包机 废纸液压打包机 塑钢带打包机 全自动废纸打包机 废铁打包机 小型真空包装机 食品真空包装机 真空包装机价格 全自动真空包装机 抽真空包装机 真空包装机械 上海真空包装机 茶叶真空包装机 自动真空包装机 北京真空包装机 二手真空包装机 青岛 真空包装机 家用真空包装机 食品真空包装机价格 深圳真空包装机 立体真空包装机 求购真空包装机 充氮气型真空包装机 真空包装机配件 真空包装机的价格 真空充气包装机 多功能真空包装机 广州真空包装机 河北真空包装机 福建真空包装机 武汉真空包装机 苏州 真空包装机 真空包装机 报价 单室真空包装机 福州真空包装机 半导体 真空包装机 单室真空包装机 蔬菜真空包装机 真空包装 真空包装袋 真空包装设备 真空包装食品 真空包装膜 食品真空包装袋 真空食品包装机械 热收缩膜包装机 北京热收缩包装机 全自动热收缩包装机 热收缩包装 浙江热收缩包装机 高速热收缩包装机 收缩包装机 收缩包装 收缩膜包装机 全自动收缩包装机 真空收缩包装 深圳收缩包装加工 收缩膜包装机器 热收缩膜 热收缩机 pvc热收缩膜 热收缩带 pof热收缩膜 热收缩 热收缩膜机 热收缩管 热收缩套 pe热收缩膜 pvc热收缩膜机 北京热收缩膜 求购热收缩膜 热收缩薄膜 pof热收缩膜价格 热收缩设备 pvc热收缩 热收缩膜加工 上海热收缩膜 pvc热收缩套管 热收缩膜供应商 北京热收缩机 pvc热收缩袋 pet热收缩膜 远红外热收缩机 苏州热收缩机 二合一热收缩机 自动封箱机 封箱胶带机 全自动封箱机 脚踏封箱机 半自动封箱机 封箱钉机 底面封箱机 杭州封箱机 自动折盖封箱机 求购封箱机 高速封箱胶带机 封箱胶带 封箱胶 封箱带 封箱胶纸 封箱器 封箱胶带价格 bopp封箱胶带 封箱 北京封箱胶带 广州封箱胶带 山东封箱胶带 封箱钉 台州封箱胶带 烟台封箱胶带 德云社封箱 封箱纸 封箱胶印刷 封箱胶带设备 封箱胶带 上海 上海封箱胶带设备 opp封箱胶带 宁波封箱胶带 封箱胶带机械 意大利封箱机 bopp封箱胶带 透明封箱胶纸 糊箱机 钉箱机 全自动粘箱机 自动贴标机 啤酒贴标机 不干胶贴标机 玻璃瓶贴标机 贴标机的发展 全自动贴标机 意大利贴标机 锦州贴标机 卡片贴标机 浆糊贴标机 贴标机工作原理 出售贴标机胶水 半自动上糊贴标机 真空转鼓贴标机 贴标 绣花贴标 啤酒贴标 贴标技术 中国标签与贴标 印花贴标 贴标检验标准 钢筋捆扎机 自动捆扎机 全自动捆扎机 半自动捆扎机 金星捆扎机 桔杆捆扎机 捆扎带 捆扎绳 捆扎钢带 自动捆扎绳 气瓶 捆扎 塑料捆扎绳机械 珍珠奶茶封口机 奶茶封口机 真空封口机 封口机价格 塑料袋封口机 塑料封口机 豆浆封口机 电磁感应铝箔封口机 铝箔封口机 自动封口机 电磁感应封口机 茶叶封口机 手压式封口机 北京封口机 手动封口机 迷你封口机 灌装封口机 脚踏封口机 脚踏封口机 手持式铝箔封口机 热合封口机 食品封口机 塑料杯封口机 小型封口机 全自动封口机 吸塑封口机 薄膜封口机 塑料瓶封口机 手提封口机 瓶盖封口机 果冻封口机 易拉罐封口机 塑杯封口机 求购封口机 珍珠奶荼封口机 半自动封口机 纸箱封口机 纸杯封口机 手动铝箔封口机 手持式封口机 手压封口机 塑料薄膜封口机 全自动充填封口机 连续式封口机 简易封口机 全自动塑料封口机 铝膜封口机 手压式塑料袋封口机 铝泊封口机 电动封口机 盒式封口机 桶装水封口机 超市用封口机 一次性杯子封口机 信封封口机 热压封口机 手压式封口机 手压式塑料袋封口机 饮料罐装机 液体灌装机 自动灌装机 胶囊灌装机 饮料灌装机 半自动灌装机 润滑油灌装机 小型灌装机 啤酒灌装机 直线灌装机 食用油灌装机 手动灌装机 全自动灌装机 涂料灌装机 矿泉水灌装机 牛奶灌装机 口服液灌装机 桶装水灌装机 酒灌装机 气雾剂灌装机 万能液体灌装机 食品灌装机 液体自动灌装机 颗粒灌装机 定量灌装机 气雾灌装机 果汁灌装机 纯净水灌装机 脚踏灌装机 香水灌装机 称重式灌装机 回转式灌装机 小包装灌装机 袋灌装机 自动小瓶灌装机装 小型饮料灌装机 电动自吸式灌装机 激光打码机 手动打码机 色带打码机 喷墨打码机 北京打码机 北京打码机 电脑打码机 日期打码机 钢印打码机 自动打码机 金属打码机 油墨打码机 电缆打码机 钢瓶打码机 电动打码机 济南 打码机 烟草激光打码机 马肯激光打码机 针孔打码机 号码管打码机 塑料打码机 印刷打码机 汽车打码机 纸箱打码机 瓶盖打码机 汽配打码机 鸡蛋打码机 打码机器 纽扣激光打码机 汽动打码机 老虎机打码 三码机 自动折纸机 瑞安折纸机 折纸 压盖机 真空压盖机 拧盖机 酒瓶压盖机 汽水压盖机 封尾机 灌装封尾机 软管灌装封尾机 牙膏管封尾机 超声波封尾机 排气软管 剥离机 标签剥离机 气动剥离机 不干胶剥离机 打包机 低台打包机 低台打包机 脚踏塑料袋封口机 脚踏塑料袋封口机 手压塑料袋封口机 手压塑料袋封口机 家用真空包装机 家用真空包装机 打包机 打包机 打包机 打包机 低台打包机 低台打包机 低台打包机 低台打包机 脚踏塑料袋封口机 脚踏塑料袋封口机 脚踏塑料袋封口机 脚踏塑料袋封口机 手压塑料袋封口机 手压塑料袋封口机 手压塑料袋封口机 手压塑料袋封口机 家用真空包装机 家用真空包装机 家用真空包装机 家用真空包装机
一字いっくこの招待状を讀み終わってから,私の心は長い時間平静になることができない.震かんしなさい!どうしてこのようなよい招待状がありますか. !私の思うままにネツト.ヮ-クbbsは数年,その以上どんな招待状が私を感動することができるはずがないと自分で思います.きょうェキスの立派な最も人の道のこんな一の招待状このようなを見たと思わなかった. ビルは主人,ましたが,貴方は私に深深ので地理は溶けるさせる''人をあるない,そらをあるない''この話. ??がありがとうございました!から私私俗っぼくで堪えられないの返事されてこのィンタワ-クの上すくないなある招待状をごすことができただかひゃひゃするならたか.しかし私やはり返事するですですなら,から感じるならもしことができない素晴らしいではないな招待状の後ろで自分のネットの名前を残しておく,私は死んで目的も閉じるはずがないです !このような素晴らしい招待状の後ろで自分の网の名前を残しておくことができるのがなんと傲慢な一つ?のことです!ビルの主人,すみません,のは利己的です! 私はなんとはなやかな詞そうでビルを形容しても,重要ですあなたの招待状の素晴らしい程度は全部足りないと知っています.全部僞りて,だから私はただ一句話したいです あなたの招待状はとてもきれいです!私は望んで生涯のは見続けます!この招待状の構想は新奇で,題材がォリジナリティ-に富んでいて,だんらくは明らか.プロットはあやしくて,こだわらなくて,重要な線は明らか.人を引きつけて佳境に入らせて,起こると示す非凡な文学の基礎に平板にあたって,という文字の文字の珠玉です.