On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:42:29AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Lewis Jardine <debian@catbox.co.uk> wrote: [...]
>
> I think the obvious intended meaning is another assertion of
> representation norms. The other conditions of this licence use
> "must" not "may". To what wording convention do you refer? Are
> you claiming that if I wrote "Fred runs; Jane runs; Tom walks;
> Belinda runs" then I really mean "Tom runs" because it follows
> a similar language pattern as the other clauses?
>
> If you are troubled by what the licensor means and the limits
> of the rights they assert, ask them.
"You may not have any cookies right now".
It's a reflexive negation rewording of "May I <x>" -> "You may not <x>".
This is not the same usage as "You may, or may not, encounter <y>". Perhaps
this is a quirk of American English; I can't really be bothered enough to
go dig up the full history. But it is sufficiently clear that at least
some large set of people who are told "You may not" interpret it as an
imperative statement, rather than an informational one, that it should be
assumed to be a prohibition.
I haven't even tried to follow the rest of the thread, it makes my head
hurt right now, so what (if any) consequences this triggers in the
interpretation, I couldn't tell you.
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature