Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > And in fact, the clause we're discussing here seems to be materially
> > satisfied if only the license text itself is shipped with the binary
> > (which usually nobody objects to) and declared to be "end-user
> > documentation".
> I'm just a bit wary about declaring that clause a no-op because it's
> so ambiguously worded,[1] and I'm not entirely sure when the
> alternative applies.
Hm, on further thought I see your point. If (as I assumed) clause 3
can be satisfied by shipping the license with the source/binary, why
would it be a separate clause at all? Clauses 1 and 2 already say that
one must do that.
--
Henning Makholm "Nej, hvor er vi altså heldige! Længe
leve vor Buxgører Sansibar Bastelvel!"
