United States: ASBCA's Landmark Holdings In Ciyasoft: Government Bound By Commercial Computer Software License It Never Saw And Has An Implied Obligation To Protect Licensed Software

Last Updated: July 25 2018
Article by Locke Bell

In a decision published last week, Appeals of CiyaSoft Corp., ASBCA Nos. 59519, 59913, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) held for the first time that the Government may be bound by the terms of a commercial software license it has neither seen nor expressly agreed to, so long as those terms are provided with the software, are consistent with those customarily provided to the public, and do not otherwise violate federal law. At least for commercial item acquisitions (and possibly beyond), this is big news for commercial software suppliers, particularly those at lower tiers in the supply chain who often are left only to hope their prime contractors have procured affirmative government approval of their end-user license terms and conditions. But that's not all: CiyaSoft also expands the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing to obligate the Government to take reasonable measures to protect licensed software from unauthorized copy or release. And, in between these landmark holdings, the ASBCA managed to touch on whether modified commercial software is still commercial, how close a license agreement must be to a standard form commercial license to be deemed one "customarily provided to the public," and the Government's duty to maintain a reliable point of contact during contract performance. Let's dive in!

Buying Commercial Computer Software Under the FAR and DFARS

Although the FAR and DFARS provisions governing commercial computer software licensing differ slightly in text, their thrust is the same. Both direct the Department of Defense (DoD) and other executive agencies to acquire commercial computer software "under licenses customarily provided to the public to the extent such licenses are consistent with Federal law and otherwise satisfy the Government's needs." FAR 12.212(a); see DFARS 227.7202-1(a) (stating the same policy, but with the qualifier in the negative: "unless such licenses are inconsistent with Federal procurement law or do not otherwise satisfy user needs").1 Both the FAR and DFARS allow the Government and a supplier to negotiate additional or lesser rights – civilian agencies under FAR 27.405-3 and DoD under DFARS 227.7202 – but the DFARS differs somewhat from 12.212, specifying this negotiation is necessary where "the Government has a need for rights not conveyed under the license customarily provided to the public." DFARS 227.7202-3(b). This may be a crucial distinction in noncommercial item acquisitions, as we will see.

The more pertinent question in CiyaSoft is how, once negotiated, these commercial terms and conditions become a part of the contract and bind the Government. The FAR is relatively clear: the Government receives "only those rights specified in the license contained in any addendum to the contract." FAR 12.212(b); see also FAR 27.405-3(a) ("If greater rights than the minimum rights identified at [FAR] 52.227-19 are needed, or lesser rights are to be acquired, they shall be negotiated and set forth in the contract."). The DFARS, on the other hand, states that the Government "shall have only the rights specified in the license under which the commercial computer software . . . was obtained," DFARS 227.7202-3(a), and mentions incorporation only with regard to specifically negotiated license rights, requiring the "specific rights granted to the Government [to] be enumerated in the contract license agreement or an addendum thereto." DFARS 227.7202-3(b). Although not giving a definitive answer on the matter, the United States District Court for the North District of Texas found in GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG, 27 F. Supp. 3d 723, 753 (N.D. Tex. 2014), that "[a]t the very least, it would seem that the [DoD] needs to receive some notice of the EULA before it can be bound by its terms."2

Off this platform, the ASBCA in CiyaSoft jumps headfirst.

The Dispute in CiyaSoft

The dispute in CiyaSoft arose out of the Army's purchase of 20 licenses of CiyaSoft's "bidirectional" translation software capable of translating language from English to Dari or Pashto and vice versa. More specifically, for $98,000, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team bought 20 "Single User Bi-Directional English/Dari Software Licenses" with one year of support and maintenance. All parties agreed that in the course of negotiations, the contracting officer did not attempt to negotiate license terms. The contract itself – which consisted of little more than a Standard Form 1449 referencing FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items (Jun 2010), and FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items (Jul 2010) – was silent as to incorporation of CiyaSoft's license.3 But, the ASBCA noted, the contract referred to the purchase of "Software Licenses" as a contract line item.

This software license was delivered to a base in Afghanistan, in a box with 20 compact discs (each of which contained a short-form of the license agreement physically in its shrinkwrap and digitally in its installation wizard, i.e., clickwrap), installation instructions, and a letter to the contracting officer. At the agency's direction, the package was addressed to a point of contact other than the contracting officer; although this contact testified he had no recollection of receiving the box, he supposed he likely would have opened it, counted the number of copies, and disregarded the license agreement. The contracting officer never saw the package or its contents, and never discussed or saw the licensing agreement.

Within a few days of delivery, CiyaSoft noticed multiple registrations on the same product ID number for one of the delivered copies, causing some concern that the license agreement was being violated. CiyaSoft ignored these concerns, assuming the Government simply made a mistake in the installation process. A few months later, though, CiySoft asked the contracting officer to provide a list of registered users, as required by the software license agreement. The contracting officer, away on leave for the Christmas holiday, never responded. In the meantime, CiyaSoft began receiving technical support inquiries from nonregistered users, including one contractor employee who said he was just one of many who received a copy while working at a translating/interpreting services company he previously worked for in Afghanistan. CiyaSoft also became aware of secondary purchases in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Mashad, Iran, of some of the 20 copies it had delivered to the Army.

CiyaSoft filed a claim alleging five breaches of the contract and its license agreement: (1) the Government's installing the same copy on more than one computer; (2) its failing to provide a list of activations or registered users; (3) its letting personnel outside the 2nd Brigade Combat Team use the software; (4) its failing to protect the software from copy and distribution by others, particularly the Army's translator/interpreter services contractors; and (5) its failing to provide a point of contact throughout the contract.4

Incorporation of the License Agreement Into the Contract

The Government first argued that it could not have breached the license agreement because it had never signed up to the license agreement as part of the contract in the first place. The Board agreed with the Government that the contracting officer never saw the license agreement, that the contract makes no mention of the license agreement, and that the only person who might have seen the full license agreement was not authorized to accept its terms; but the Board disagreed that these facts protected the Government from being bound. After all, the Board noted, citing FAR 12.212, the Government's policy when licensing commercial software is to accept the licensing terms customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers, so long as the license is consistent with federal law and otherwise satisfies the government's needs.

But can that policy effect a binding agreement without actual acceptance of the commercial terms? The Board decided it can, adopting a rule of commercial law to find that the contracting officer, even without reading the agreement, had been placed on "inquiry" notice of its terms. The Board chided the Army for never requesting the opportunity to review the license prior to awarding the contract, and noted that the Army never objected to the license upon its receipt. Given these circumstances, the Board held, the contracting officer had failed his duty to inquire about the license terms and, as such, should have imputed knowledge of those terms. Thus, in the face of seemingly clear language in the FAR requiring incorporation through attachment, the Board found that the contract included the license agreement shipped with the software. The Board even went a step further and generalized its holding:

[T]he government can be bound by the terms of a commercial software license it has neither negotiated nor seen prior to the receipt of the software, so long as the terms are consistent with those customarily provided by the vendor to other purchasers and do not otherwise violate federal law.

The Board then asked whether the license agreement was (1) for commercial software and (2) customarily provided to other purchasers. It is unclear how the outcome of the case would have changed had the license agreement failed either one of these. Given the Board's conclusion that the license agreement was incorporated into the contract through its delivery with the software, the only remaining question should be whether the terms are consistent with Federal law.5 The FAR requires a contracting officer to ensure that a license agreement is one customarily provided to the public and satisfies the Government's needs, but there is no reason to think that, where the contracting officer does not do so, the agreed-to license is constructively bound somehow. Nevertheless, even though this analysis arguably is unnecessary, the Board offers some interesting comments.

Defining Commercial Software

The Board supposed that one could argue CiyaSoft's software does not meet the definition of a "commercial item" in FAR 2.101 because it has not been sold to the general public (despite being sold internationally to government agencies and corporate customers). In addition to the fact the software was procured under a FAR Part 12 commercial item contract, the Board looked to the software's function, which it defined as "translating one language into another," and noted this function is not "inherently government or non-commercial." The Board also noted evidence in the record of sales to the public, albeit unauthorized sales, presumably referring to the unauthorized sales in Kabul and Mashad.6

The Board then addressed whether certain modifications to the software – removal of an online registration requirement to facilitated secure government use and insertion of a unique version number and product identification numbers – changed the software's commercial status. The Board concluded they did not, reasoning "the change does not affect the core purpose of the software, which is translation," and "the change merely substituted one form of registration for another" without "add[ing] any requirement that was not previously required." These are helpful goalposts for commercial software suppliers to consider when determining whether modifications to tailor a product to Government needs ruins a claim to commerciality.

Deviations From Customary Commercial Licenses

The Board reasoned that an argument also could be made that the license agreement at issue was not the standard license agreement CiyaSoft offers to other customers. Indeed, the license expressly stated "CiyaSoft Corporation standard software license agreement does not apply to this agreement: Activation is not online and registration is not required," referencing the software modifications noted above. This was the only change to the license – instead of registering online to activate the software, the Army was required to provide a list of activations to CiyaSoft directly. The Board found that this additional requirement did not cause the license to "differ materially" from that customarily provided because the "core function or purpose" of the license agreement – in this regard, to grant permission for use on only one computer system per copy of the software – did not change.

Government Duties and Breach

Having concluded that the Government was bound by CiyaSoft's license agreement, the Board then turned to whether the license agreement imposed the duties CiyaSoft claimed, and if so, whether the Government breached those duties, resulting in damages to CiyaSoft.

With regard to allowing government personnel outside the 2nd Brigade Combat Team to use the software, the Board concluded that the license agreement, which identified the licensee as the "US Government," did not limit the software's use to that specific unit. The Board interpreted the designation of the US Government as the licensee to mean "any government employee, or employee of a contractor acting on behalf of the government or other agent of the government, may use the software" – of course, so long as the software is not installed on more than the number of allotted computers, in this case 20.

By contrast, CiyaSoft succeeded in showing breach where the Government installed the same copy of the software on more than one computer and failed to provide CiyaSoft a list of activations. The Board found these obligations to be expressly set forth in the license agreement, and concluded that the Agency breached them, resulting in damages to CiyaSoft by "depriving it of the license fee the government would have had to otherwise pay to obtain a valid copy of the software," and by "undermining its ability to have proven that more copies of the software than were licensed were used by the government."

The two remaining alleged breaches – the Government's failure to maintain a point of contact throughout the contract, and its failure to protect the software from copy and distribution by others – find no footing in the text of the license agreement, and instead are rooted in the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

With regard to the first, the Board found it "self-evident that a party's performance of a contract could require communication with the other party," and held that a failure to facilitate such communication through maintaining a point of contact could breach the Government's implied duty of good faith and fair dealing through a lack of cooperation. The Board ultimately found that the Government did not breach this duty in its dealings with CiyaSoft, but contractors nevertheless might consider keeping this section of CiyaSoft in their hip pocket to show to particularly hard-to-reach government personnel.

The second of these implied obligations – requiring a licensee to protect licensed software from harm – is significant. The Board held that "an implied duty exists that the licensee will take reasonable measures to protect the software, to keep it from being copied indiscriminately, which obviously could have a deleterious effect on the ultimate value of the software to the licensor." Finding no support for such a duty in intellectual property law, the Board looked to the common law doctrine of waste, which provides an owner of real property relief for damage by a current tenant. The Board quoted the Supreme Court's 1876 decision in United States v. Bostwick, 94 U.S. 53 (1876), holding the United States liable for the destruction of ornamental trees and other damage to the Kalorama estate in Washington, D.C., while it was occupied and operated by Union soldiers as a smallpox hospital during the Civil War.7 The same obligation "to use the property in a manner so as to not unnecessarily damage [its] value" applies, the Board reasoned with little explanation, to software the Government has been authorized to use in a form embodied on a compact disc.8

The Board did not elaborate on what "reasonable measures" must be taken, but found CiyaSoft failed to present sufficient evidence of the Government's failure to meet them. In Bostwick, the Supreme Court applied a negligence standard, distinguishing certain damages that were the result of the Government's breach of its duty "not to commit waste, or suffer it to be committed," from a fire supposedly caused by a defective stovepipe during the hospital staff's Christmas Eve ball, for which the Government was not liable because it happened "by accident" and not "through the neglect of the United States." It is not clear what such a standard would mean when applied to the protection of software. Must the Government, for example, prohibit employees from using thumb drives on computers with access to the software? Or keep the software in a protected format that prevents copy? In the absence of clarity, commercial software suppliers wishing to impose any such affirmative measures should write them explicitly in their licensing agreements.


The result in CiyaSoft is, in many regards, a victory for computer software suppliers, but it should not be overread. At times, the decision's legal reasoning is less than rigorous, even if the Board arguably reaches the right results. Moreover, it is unclear whether the Board would reach the same result in a noncommercial item acquisition if it were construing the DFARS provisions at 227.7202-3(b), rather than FAR 12.212. Although CiyaSoft provides a nice backstop in case things go wrong, contractors should continue diligently pursuing express Government acceptance of their software licensing agreements.


1 Even though a Department of the Army contract is at issue, the ASBCA does not once refer to the DFARS in its decision. Instead, because the Army procured the software in accordance with FAR Part 12, the Board refers only to the FAR commercial software licensing provisions at FAR 12.212 and FAR 27.405-3. The first makes sense - all purely commercial item procurements are subject to FAR Part 12, and where a conflict arises with other parts of the FAR or DFARS, FAR Part 12 takes precedence. See FAR 12.102(c). However, the Board's reliance on FAR 27.405-3 is less sure. FAR 27.400 specifically exempts the Department of Defense from all provisions in that subpart (with the exception of the general policy statement in FAR 27.402), but FAR 12.212 itself directs agencies to proceed in accordance with FAR 27.405-3. It is unclear whether, when procuring commercial software alone under FAR Part 12 (as opposed to non-Part 12 procurements that merely involve commercial software), the DoD is meant to follow FAR 27.405-3 (and all it entails, including the possible incorporation of certain contract clauses) or its own regulations at DFARS 227.7202. In all events, the provisions at DFARS 227.7202 warrant consideration here.

2 In this particular analysis in GlobeRanger, the court relied heavily on the direction in DFARS 227.7202-3(b), "If the Government has a need for rights not conveyed under the license customarily provided to the public, the Government must negotiate with the contractor to determine if there are acceptable terms for transferring such rights." The court reasoned that this language would be rendered superfluous if the Government could be bound by a commercial license it never had the opportunity to review. 27 F. Supp. 3d at 753. As mentioned, DFARS 227.7202-3 is absent from the ASBCA's decision, and the Board similarly does not cite to GlobeRanger. One wonders whether the Board's result would be the same if confronted with a commercial license supplied under a noncommercial procurement, therefore analyzing DFARS 227.7202-3 instead of FAR 12.212. The Board's reliance on inquiry notice, though, as described in more detail later on, does not conflict directly with any language in the DFARS and would appear to apply equally to DoD. Indeed, DFARS 227.7202-3's grant of rights based on the "license under which the commercial computer software . . . was obtained" seems more open to a theory of inquiry notice and acceptance sight unseen than FAR 12.212's analogous grant of "only those rights specified in the license contained in any addendum to the contract."

3 The contract also omitted FAR 52.227-19, an optional clause that establishes restricted rights in commercial computer software and is to be used when "there is any confusion as to whether the Government's needs are satisfied or whether a customary commercial license is consistent with Federal law." FAR 27.405-3(a).

4 To be precise, CiyaSoft actually claimed seven breaches, but the ASBCA determined that two were equivalent and one was not presented clearly enough in CiyaSoft's claim to establish jurisdiction at the Board.

5 A contracting officer does not have authority, through inquiry notice or otherwise, to accept on behalf of the Government an agreement that violates statute.

6 To this list of valid justifications of commerciality, the Board added that the software was developed without any government funding. This perpetuates a common misunderstanding. The commercial item definition refers to development at private expense only in the limited case of establishing commerciality through sales to State and local governments; there is no requirement that an item be developed at private expense to be commercial if it meets any of the other prongs in the FAR 2.101 definition, such as sale to commercial entities like CiyaSoft's corporate customers.

7 The Board also cites A&B Ltd. Partnership v. Gen. Servs. Admin., GSBCA No. 15208, 04-1 32439, for its citation of Bostwick as one of the earliest enunciations of the common law principle of waste by a United States court.

8 Stating, "We see no reason why a similar duty should not be applicable to software licenses, which resemble leases to some degree in that only a limited use of the property, rather than its entirety is being conveyed." Of course, the Board is not the first authority to borrow from real property when analyzing intellectual property law. See, e.g., Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342 (1924) ("It was manifestly intended by Congress to surround the conveyance of patent property with safeguards resembling those usually attaching to that of land.").

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions