Re: ITP: qvwm and qvbanner
Hi,
At Thu, 21 Oct 1999 21:33:45 -0400,
Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> Not really. The problem is simply what is meant by `being
> responsible for the modification'. It might be better to say
> somthing like:
I understand.
This point was also noticed by some debian-jp members yesterday,
and now we are asking for upstream author to remove
'responsibility for modification' terms.
> It doesn't sound like it's needed at all, but at least it would
> spell it out.
Surely. Thanks for your kind advice.
--
Shuichi OONO
Reply to: