Re: DFSG audit of X-Oz license wanted

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>
> 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!"