On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 06:28:06PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 17:35, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:07:13PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > > > Distribution does not, and has never, mattered (see previous message in > > > this thread). > > I think it's pretty clear that all three subsections of section 2 takes no > > effect unless distribution has occured. > Please read it again -- if that's so, why does (2)(b) specifically > mention distribution? > (2)(a) and (2)(c) *do* apply even in the absence of distribution.
Well, they try to anyway. If there's no copying taking place, I fail to see how it can apply, whether it tries to or not. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
