Re: Sun clarifies intent of the DLJ
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > Although I'm not sure about the absolute validity of the argument that
> > licences have to be written incomprehensibly, I certainly think that this
> > revised FAQ preamble allows people to rely on the statements in the FAQ
> > sufficiently.
>
> I don't get it. Half of the problem was that the FAQ said it doesn't count,
> but the other half of the problem was that the license said that the FAQ
> doesn't count. It seems that fixing the preamble fixes the first half of the
> problem but not the second.
That would then fall under the part in the FAQ which says that if there are
conflicts between the FAQ and the licence, please let Sun know and they'll
fix them.
So now you know what to do.
- Matt
Reply to: