Violating a Creative Commons License

Last night I was told by Richard Lambert about an Australian company using our “Interesting Ways to use an iPad in the Classroom” resource as a handout at a sales event. You can see the image clearly showing how they have used it, breaking the terms of the CC license. The MD contacted me overnight after the deluge of comments via Twitter. This is my reply to Andrew Bennetto the Managing Director of edsoft Interactive.


I am deeply disappointed about what I saw of the handout for your iPad Breakfast event. The presentation / resource “Interesting Ways to use an iPad in the Classroom” has been crafted by teachers all across the world willing to share their own ideas. That sense of openness and sharing is key to these resources – this ethos has been developed by myself and countless others, not just over a few months, but through years of encouragement and hard work.

Your company violated the terms of the license clearly stated on the title slide of the resource.

Just to be absolutely clear about how the licensing is unavoidable – when you open the document, via whichever link or method available, you see the title slide, which states:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial Share Alike 3.0 License.”

I do not think there is any excuse to say that you were unaware of the license.

The final slide of the presentation also clearly states my name, email address, Twitter name and blog address. It is abundantly clear that I am technically the owner of the document. Once again, no excuse to say you were “not aware of the source.”

From the photograph I have seen that the pages have been edited to remove the names of the teachers that have contributed the idea to make it anonymous. Your logo suggests in fact that you own the document. The teachers who have taken the time to add their ideas deserve the proper attribution and once again this violates the license.

You did not give proper attribution for the entire document – but you also removed the correct attribution for each individual idea.

In your email you apologise, I trust that if it is one of your employees who has created this document that you take appropriate steps to ensure that it never happens again. On behalf of all of the teachers involved with the “Interesting Ways” series it is only right that I staunchly defend and protect the ethical manner with which they have been constructed and should be used.

In your email you go on to ask for permission to use the resource. I am sure you will understand that my answer has to be “No”.

In schools across the world there are teachers trying to educate our children about the correct use of digital content on the web, copyright and honest attribution – you are setting an extremely poor example.


If you share my thoughts on this then please, let’s hear them!


  1. We just studied this in my Educational Technology program and I am glad to see that you are standing up for the Creative Commons License.

  2. I’m afraid you might be right about the way that many teachers treat material on the web; re-using material without first thinking about the creator’s rights. However I suspect not so much the people who selflessly contribute to ‘Interesting Ways.’ I’d go further and suggest that many of them are people doing their best to help their colleagues understand their obligations in these matters.

    As for our contractual commitments, again I suspect you’re right. But I wonder to what extent our employers have ownership of our reflections of activities we undertook whilst ‘on duty.’ Perhaps of the resources we produced whilst on duty, yes. But is the implication that they have rights on how we analyse and reflect on our practice and whether we choose to share those musings amongst a wider community?

    I would never claim to be any authority on these matters, but I would have thought CC is more about advising others how they can and cannot use a resource, rather than an attempt to stake a claim to it.

    But I’m sure others will tell me otherwise?

  3. I very much agree with Theo. Some people have quite obviously purposively removed the names that were posted with the original source. You have to go to great lengths to steal something that way. Some posters above talk about this as well already, but I think that Edusoft should go to great lengths to 1) rectify, and 2) support the resource.

  4. This is a very dissappointing development, which unfortunately happens all too often. Teachers, academics are open to share their work with the world (and put many hard hours in), which subsequently can be used for commercial ends. I certainly am much in favor of being open with resources (and using them for academic purposes, or otherwise). However, when another party comes in and essentially steals the resource, this is quite wrong.

    Recently, I have had a very similar experience. I am an editor of a magazine where academics write articles about social psychology. These academics do not benefit from this themselves, other people review, and we have editors working on the pieces. This is very time consuming and not central to their day jobs (and in fact the whole process of setting up the magazine is quite time-consuming). Every once in a while I google some pieces of the articles (I am always happy to see when people actually use our resource, but for thinking, and for educational purposes).

    It happens quite frequently, but this is perhaps the most blatant example: Look at page 3 and then look at our resource: Not only does Chiropractic4Welness verbatim take sentences out of our text, but they do not even acknowledge it!

    I have sent them a message asking them to rectify this error, and to pay a small fee (essentially as a donation to maintain our site) for the text. I am not sure whether this is the best approach to take to this. The question is — how can one protect this without shielding the material from the larger public? I am sure that these kind of things happen more often, but can we do something about it?

  5. Its just simply not on – regardless of the understanding or appreciation of CC licences. This company took the collaborative effort of a group of teachers and repurposed it, without permission, removing all credit and then apparently used it at a sales event. In this regard your wording is particularly restrained. If they had followed the correct use of the licence then they wouldn’t be able to use it for a commercial purpose. If they’d e-mailed you, discussed a proposal and – most importantly – made sure that they added to and developed the content further for the good of everyone then it might have been possible. The fact the document has had every credit, licence detail and link back to the original document is awful – it is just ripping the good work of others off.

    Perhaps it was an employee looking for a quick solution that the MD knew nothing about. Now the company should be making significant efforts to apologise and correct the situation. Paying for your hosting costs for a year, sponsoring future ’30 ideas….’ collaborations or financialy supporting the teaching community in another way. Why is the MD offering to help educate the world about CC licences? Surely they, at best, have illustrated a complete misunderstanding of this specific CC licence. At worst, they’ve knowingly stripped a document and repurposed it for commercial gain.

  6. NOT agreeing with what they did but imagine they had gone to a little bit of effort to disguise the “interesting ways” (- maybe by not calling it “interesting ways!”) and tinkered and tampered with some of the wording and maybe even have put a couple of their own pictures in and then finally instead of whacking the lot out on individual handouts…this might never even have come to the attention of even a sharp eyed follower of Tom’s great work. My point being that the cc licence really does rely on one having a strong moral compass and in business, let’s face it in the economic climate anything shared online is ripe for exploitation!

  7. It’s bad enough when other educators do this sort of thing and put their names on other people’s hard work that they share, but a company? Completely irresponsible and unconscionable. Companies have used that old ‘it slipped through the cracks’ line for ages to get away with this sort of thing.
    Perhaps Edsoft should make some sort of SIZEABLE MONETARY contribution to “work with you collaboratively to put energy behind this in a positive manner.”

  8. I’m now pretty confused about what constitutes commercial use. For context, I am a self employed ICT teacher and consultant and have contributed to many of the “Interesting Ways” presentations. If I ran a training session, conference or seminar in which people paid to take part, in the course of which I talked about disseminated or otherwise linked to a CC resource with a non-commercial attribution, would that represent a breach of license? Even though I may have authored a small portion of it? Even though the resources in question were never mentioned in the marketing of the event?

  9. Andrew, thanks for your contribution to this conversation, most helpful. However what I still find difficult to grasp is why, (as I am given to understand), Edusoft felt it necessary to remove the names of the contributors to the resource. This surely leaves Edusoft open to a charge of plagiarism as well as misuse of a Creative Commons licence licence. I think this is the question many of us would like to have answered.

  10. I absolutely agree with your decision to refuse use in this case. How can we teach children to be honest re downloading and file sharing and appropriate use of copyright materials when companies blatantly break ethical agreements insulting all involved in the intellectual creation of a wonderful resource

  11. As with Sue, I’m also not clear on what actually constitutes commercial use.

    For the Interesting Ways presentation, it could have been used by:

    1) Selling the resource or something derived from it
    2) Distributing the resources with proper attribution; not directly selling it, but using it to promote other services.
    3) Showing the resource on a screen, with proper attribution; talking delegates through it
    4) Simply providing a link to it on a handout or blog

    Where does the dividing line fall? Doug, I think, is suggesting that it’s between 1) and 2). I tend to agree. What do others think? if the company had reprinted the document, in full, with all licensing and attribution information intact, and without branding it with their own logo, would this constitute violation of the license?

    (It can also be quite difficult to define exactly what a “commercial use” is. For example, if a school or LA ran sessions for a network of neighbouring schools, and charged people to attend, would that be commercial use?)

  12. Everyone knows how I feel about violation of the intellectual property of others. Once you have had your work lifted, for commercial purposes or not, under copyright or Creative Commons, you really understand how much it hurts. Creative Commons makes it easy to apply explicit permission for terms of use, and I applaud Tom for his letter.

    The fact the item was edited to remove the contributor’s names also eems to indicate that the editing and lack of attribution was intentional. As for Angie Buy’s questions, it would have been fine to direct their participants to the original where it lives on the Web, but attribution is not enough when the terms of use clearly state commercial use is not permitted.

  13. Hi Tom,

    As a business owner/operator of a successful interactive learning business aimed at integrating learning into the classroom and previous publisher of 20 years in a global information business, I am only too aware of author’s, publishers and software development companies rights when it comes to licensing and am fully supportive of the great work that CC has instituted in promoting community understanding of policy and protocols for sharing of content since its establishment around 2002.

    As part of our business in helping teachers understand new slate technology, we developed a series of leadership information briefings sessions. In the rush of preparing for one of these, one document from quite a few “got away” from our normal attribution procedure.

    As soon as I became aware of it, within the hour, I took responsibility for our actions and I proactively sourced and tracked down your personal email address, sent you an email explaining the situation honestly and genuinely. I also took immediate action for other workshops, dealt directly with some other people’s concern as one does when dealing in a small business environment. I re-inforced to my team the importance of clear procedure and policy and emphasised the importance swiftly.

    I mentioned also to you that this was not a conspiracy thing going on to manipulate content, or take advantage of other teachers expertise – we employ former teachers and work closely with the teacher and student community to help integrate technology for over 27 years in which we have built a strong relationship with our customers who know us well for the value, energy and passion we bring to this education market in Australia and New Zealand. While it might not appease some of your readers, it needs to be noted that I am personally passionate about e-learning and the benefits that new technology can bring to learning, to unlock human potential and our ability to drive this through to tangible learning outcomes and improvement in our education system – and I know our loyal customers appreciate our assistance in this regard.

    I expressed also my surprise at your response and I mentioned that if we truly wish to help people understand more of the benefits of CC, it will be through effective mutual understanding, compassion and empathetic teaching to obtain sustainable change in the way the education community operates.

    The bigger issue is to bring more visibility to the use of CC and the benefits it can afford teachers – the community in this part of the world needs much more ongoing assistance to raise the profile of CC and I would be happy to work with you collaboratively to put energy behind this in a positive manner – after all, we are both in the business of helping teachers succeed.

    Andrew Bennetto – Managing Director
    edsoft Interactive

  14. You may be right, though I think one of the problems with CC licencing is there doesn’t seem to be a clear definition of what constitutes commercial use.

    I’ve had conversations about Creative Commons licences with people who would go along with what you are saying, and conversely I know people who would argue that if a company trades for profit then any use at all should be regarded as commercial use, irrespective of the context that they are using it in.

    For me, CC licences are majorly flawed and it’s the reason I choose to copyright most of the original resources I create that aren’t built on CC work, rather than licence them under Creative Commons. There’s just too much ambiguity and scope for misinterpretation for my liking.

  15. I was a little uncomfortable with the language and tone used in your post, Tom: expressing your disappointment of the infringing use, conveying “ownership” of the digital document, and using a NC license* and denying permission for a commercial use. Granted, I think that your issues and points are valid and that you are most likely responding to the email from the “Managing Director” and not the use itself, but I feel like every use (even an infringing use) of openly licensed content is an opportunity to educate and collaborate, not an opportunity to scold and shame people. I wonder how this post might be received with a slightly different tone – one that focuses more on sharing than on control. Just a thought, out loud.

    * I choose a NC license only when I’m licensing pictures with children or family members in them. I like to encourage reuse by all entities as I consider myself an amateur who has no interest in attempting to monetize knowledge artifacts of a simplistic nature.

  16. This post is made in the context of Australian copyright law and IP licencing and master-servant employment contracts.
    This is likely to to result in me sitting in a hot seat, and though I agree that edsoft appears to have used the materials in contravention of the CC licence for which they have no excuse, there are some very high horses being ridden here. Teachers in general, are not known for their understanding of, or adherence to copyright laws or even knowing when it is the statutory licences entered into by their schools or educational systems, that allow them to use materials in the way that they do, rather than the copyright act etc.
    What is more interesting is that many of these contributors may well have written what they did “in the course of their employment” (which has nothing to do with what time of the day they wrote it or where) – but that it is a report of and/or based on what they have done during the course of their paid employment. As a result, the rightful owner of what they have written, is most likely their employer! This raises the question of whether these teachers actually had the right to put a CC licence to it anyway since they may not own it in the first place. If you think you own the copyright in those maths exercises you wrote for your class or that science test you wrote and gave out last week then you are sadly mistaken – you don’t. Your school (if independent) or the department of Education or Catholic Education Office does. How they exercise their rights or if they do, is up to them – but it doesn’t mean that they don’t have them. How many of you have given these things to others without seeking your employer’s permission. Whilst I agree it is not currently common practice to do so, it doesn’t remove the fact that your employer owns the copyright, which means in law, you don’t get to choose who you “share” it with – regardless of whether you wrote it on your own computer on the weekend or not!
    So be careful of throwing stones when you may live in a glass house. It doesn’t make edsoft right, but reflect on your own practice aswell , as you may be breaching copyright and other Intellectual Property laws yourself more often than you think – and as far as the law is concerned “ignorance is no defence”.
    I would be surprised if most other countries don’t have similar master-servant type provisions for ownership of works created in the course of employment.
    There are some specific exceptions (surveyors etc), but not for school teachers….

  17. Well said Tom!
    I came across a link recently which basically cut and pasted my entire blog post and felt a little perturbed. Then I realized that it was non-commercial and a Member of a county Board of Education sharing it with his district and giving me full credit… that’s fair use!

    Using your Interesting Ways commercially is UNfair use! It’s a great resource that I shared just today on Plurk with Kevin Honeycutt (and educators he was talking to in Kansas), and also here in a comment: It is a fantastic resource shared by many educators for educators and it is completely underhanded for it to be ‘used’ for commercial purposes against the cc license it is so generously shared!

    I’m glad you are making a stand!

  18. You are being far too kind in dealing with this issue. Request direct financial contribution of fees that have been generated as a result of using the content. Put the fees towards a charitable cause that resonates with the authors.

    At the very least, request a phone call to learn more about how the content was ‘accidentally’ misused.

    Request an email or other communication be posted on their web site alerting those in attendance to the misuse and give appropriate authorship credit.

    In a world of creative commons a private mea culpa is not enough.

  19. I agree, Theo. Again, I’m just saying that just because someone uses
    something incorrectly (and even if disingenuous when caught) doesn’t
    preclude them using it again *properly* under the terms of the CC-license.
    It’s my understanding that commercial companies can use CC-licensed stuff if
    not making a profit directly from the activity or context in which they are

  20. Excellent post Tom, thanks for sharing and letting us all know. Hope to see lots more of the excellent (cc licenced) work you do.

  21. Clearly states NC (non commercial) can’t see how Edsoft’s use is Non Commercial. However even if they continue, and I suspect they may, I am sure Tom has better things to do than chase them through the International courts, the more that teachers and potential customers are aware of the ‘real source’ the better. They can act as judge ; )

  22. Oh, heavens. This AND the pedophile/Amazon problem.

    You know, sometimes I think we have to forgive those who think the world they knew is coming to an end.

    Sometimes I think that perhaps all decency and understanding and caring for our young has gone by the wayside.

    Sometimes I think that I agree. Totally.

    This morning, I think only of how sad I am that such a long string of cooperation and help and contributions by teachers has been turned into something anonymous and now marketed.

    And now I think that I am distraught. I don’t know or understand the greedy in this world who use resources created for children for their own gain.

    I don’t like what the world has become, when this type of greed can wipe out years of good in a flash.

    But I also believe that time balances all things. And in this case—I hope time does a real number on them.

    Shame on you, edsoft Interactive. Frankly, I hope your business plummets!

    But—I know it won’t. Business has always triumphed over teachers and children.

    And shouldn’t they feel PROUD?

  23. Accept your point. I was only trying to show that, for example, if they ran
    a free workshop and properly CC-licensed the resources, there isn’t much
    anybody could do to stop them…

  24. Accept your point Doug, but as it is a non-commercial licence, proper use is unlikely to be an option…

    If they want to use it commercially, (which, from what has been said so far, it would seem they do) then that falls outside the scope of the licence.

  25. I’m at a large boys school in Sydney and had contributed to the Interesting Ways iPad ideas, I certainly shall make sure that my Sydney colleagues are aware of this breach on the part of Edsoft

  26. I am a little confused as well on CC rules.
    I totally get they violated many of the rules of the CC for this incident but for anything under “CC for non-commercial use” does that mean that any business cannot use it simply because they are a company? What if a purely informational pamphlet were to be made, and they used images that were registered under this CC and even gave credit to the person who made it have they violated the CC? Its nothing they personally make money on but they are a company so is that the line?
    I’ve been discussing this with my husband this morning and we are getting a little fuzzy on specifics of a CC like this.

  27. I think what Edsoft did was wrong, but I’m not sure you can now prevent
    them from abiding from the terms of the CC-license and using it properly.
    That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, surely?

  28. A measured and considered response Tom, to what I hope was a *thoughtless* act. Unfortunately, I suspect there was a greater degree of premeditation and that appalls me. So there appears to be two possibilities:
    1. ignorance of CC
    2. blatant disregard for CC
    In either case I know how that would affect *my* decision if I was looking to do business with them.

  29. Tom, in my opinion what this company has done epitomises the reason that so many teachers choose NOT to share their work with others ie. the fear that THEIR hard work is somehow plagiarised by others without acknowledgement. This has been a particularly reprehensible example of such activity, particularly given the blatant removal of any indicator that people other than the company were responsible for the creation of the document. Even when viewed at it its most simple level this sets a very bad example to others.

    Therefore you are to be commended in responding as you have done, as had you not done so it may very well have opened the doors for every one of your other ‘Interesting Ideas…’ series to be used in the same way – so you’ve nipped that in the bud.

    I suspect, if nothing else, this incident has dealt a serious blow to the credentials and reputation of edsoft Interactive (whatever that reputation may be), and it may cause them more problems than any actions resulting from your excellent, and in my opinion, very restrained email.

  30. Just a thought Doug, but isn’t that in the same vein as, for example, someone having burgled a house. When the police later pay them a call and the telly they stole is simply sitting unused in the corner of the room, are they no longer guilty of the crime? (Or maybe guilty of another?)

  31. I agree wholeheartedly of course. The most powerful part for me is the last line about what we try to teach our kids day in day out about their use of content on the web.

    A fair and just reply Tom.

    Rick KT

  32. Hi Tom,

    I was sorry to hear that this had happened, and you can count on my support.

    I agree that this kind of thing is unacceptable, & if the situation that you describe here happened to me then I would say no, too… and I would also bill them a hefty sum for commercial use (which I’d redirect to an educational charity if they paid up).

    My personal view is that if commercial organisations who do this kind of thing are allowed to get off Scot free, then it muddies the waters even further with regards to public perception of how people can use work which is licenced under Creative Commons, and we may eventually reach the point where CC licences become meaningless and nobody takes any notice of them; which is why I would argue for zero tolerance myself in situations where companies have flagrantly breached not-for-profit licences and sought to pass off other people’s work as theirs.

    Having said that, each to their own of course; just adding a bit more food for thought.

  33. Excellent response. I use the Interesting Ideas slides to introduce my class to existence of Creative Commons License and figure that if they have sone understanding of it at the age of 10 that others are able to as well.

  34. I agree with all here in that this is totally inappropriate – though not that surprising, I have to say. I did wonder about the email they wrote requesting permission to use the material. It would depend what exactly they were asking for but if they were to add the appropriate attribution, you can’t actually refuse their re-use of the material – that’s the very purpose of the licence you applied in the first place! (But it’s possible they just asked for permission to use ‘as is,’ i.e. without attribution.)

  35. Angie,

    Good questions—and I’m glad that you’re working to understand CC licensing.

    This publisher made two big mistakes. First, EVERY CC license requires that attribution be given to the original creators of the content being used. While that attribution requirement is a bit murky—-it reads that attribution has to be given in the method specified by the creator, which isn’t always easy to find when you’re a CC user—-this publisher went as far as to remove all identifiers, which could have served as attributions.

    Then, the license Tom mentions is a “Non-Commercial” license—-That means the work can be used for any purpose that’s not commercial. Clearly, the publisher’s choice to hand this out at a sales event goes beyond the scope of a non-commercial license.

    The last part of the license—“Share Alike”—could be a lot of fun. That means any content created with the original source must carry the same license as the original source. Essentially, ANY other technology company can take the work created by this publisher and use it freely without permission from this publisher. I’d love to see what they’d do if a rival took what they believe to be their intellectual property and started using it without permission!

    Here’s a really simple description of all the CC licenses:

    Hope this helps,

  36. Hi Tom,
    What’s happened is appalling and I trust that this company will cease distributing the material immediately. Well done for imposing your IP rights!



  37. I am appalled at the behaviour of that company, and as a Australian teacher librarian who likes to share the Interesting Ways series with my colleagues, I am deeply disappointed. The attributions are a great way to demonstrate the meaning and value of CC licencing and how we can all be sharing and learning professionally, and the perpetrator obviously didn’t have a teacher librarian teaching them when they went to school.

  38. Well said Tom. I completely agree with your response -it’s measured but pointed.
    Like others, I’d like to see how Edsoft respond.
    There’s no excuse for what they did.

  39. This is a very balanced, even generous, response Tom. I know companies, in education, that have brought legal proceedings against teachers for using and sitributing their content inappropriately. The threat of punishment for this sort of behaviour is important for more than economic and commercial reasons. It is about maintaining an ethical and respectful culture – where we recognise the value that our neighbours, friends and innovators bring to our communities.

    The chutzpah of this company in asking for permission is unbelievable! It also proves that they do not understand what they have done.

    I can only hope that this helps them, and other companies, to learn that CC must be respected. I am sure that the shareholders/owners of edsoft are not going to be too happy – as this is not going to be good for business!

  40. Blatant and disgusting, imho. Good job on the response and I’d love to hear more about widespread letters. Would be interesting to contact all the contributors to this fabulous project and have them express their voice as well. I know I will!

  41. I have a question as I seek to grasp Creative Commons- if they had directed their participants to your site, would that have been okay? As in, have their handout with their information and direct them to visit the site to get ideas. What if they had given attribution? Since they are a company selling a service, if their handout had look like above, but included contributors’ names, would that have been legal? I am in no way related to this at all, and am just trying to better understand the rules of CC. This is such a concrete example that it’s a good teaching moment.

  42. When I saw the tweets about this yesterday evening I couldn’t quite believe that a company never mind an individual would so blatantly steal the work of many teachers and make it appear as there own. Your response is measured Tom yet displays the anger that many of us who have been involved with the inspirational ‘Interesting ways’ series also feel. I hope edsoft interactive have realised what a massive misjudgement they have made and rectify the matter immediately.
    If there is one psitive to take out away from this situation it’s the strength and reach of the network and worldwide community of educative that we are part of. Without them we may never have discovered this and for that reason long may this great community grow.

  43. Great response to this companies use, or rather, misuse, or your CC document. It actually dovetails nicely with another current issue going on regarding copyright and Cook’s Source magazine ( Check out the current news about how even decades old copyright law is still broken by traditional media enterprises.

  44. Well-said. I cannot count the times I have had to “teach” about CC to folks who have inquired about my images. However, fortunately, it is normally the reverse-effect. I have content pre-emptively shared as creative commons… and folks still ask to pay me for non-commercial use.

    Isn’t that interesting?

    The number of folks who really understand CC is very… very small.

  45. A clear, concise response! I totally agree with you. I am in absolute disbelief they did this so blatantly, but then perhaps I’m somewhat naive. I am very glad you said no to their request to continue to use it. Their violation totally trashes the spirit in which it was made.

  46. Well done Tom and good on yer Richard. No excuse for edsoft. No excuse at all. ‘Interesting ways’ are fantastic and a well shared as well as collaborative resource. No-one’s trying to make money from them so edsoft shouldn’t be either. Hope the word spreads and they get an idea of how their reputation can be destroyed in a day by doing things like this.

  47. Having just covered copyright with my Year 9s, I wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph. I think I may also share this with them too! Personally, I’m also glad you decided not to give permission.

9 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. All’s Fair .. « Mike McSharry
  2. Dela med dig av dina Creative Commons erfarenheter | Kristina Alexandersons blogg
  3. Ed Tech Crew » Ed Tech Crew 143 – WOW with Dean Groom & creative commons attribution ‘epic fail’
  4. Useful sites (weekly) « Rhondda’s Reflections – wandering around the Web
  5. All’s Fair ..
  6. Ed Tech Crew » Ed Tech Crew 161 – An interview with Tom Barrett
  7. Viral Notebook » Why referencing is important
  8. Writers’ Rights: Right? | How Publishing Really Works
  9. The “Interesting Ways” Series: A Milestone in Sharing |

Comments are closed.